Now Vassily Ivanchuk adds his opinions on FIDE's recent announcement of a plot to add a candidates tournament to the world championship cycle currently in progress. One of the reasons for expanding things further, according to Ivanchuk, is that so many top players are "unable" to participate in the Grand Prix. The correct word is "unwilling," of course. FIDE has sabotaged it further with this latest change, as well as by allowing the sponsorship of several of the GP events to fall through. But last I checked the World Cup was still on course and everyone can participate there.
Apart from the fact that warping the current cycle is insane, the outline of the system Ivanchuk proposes certainly makes more sense than whatever Ilyumzhinov has come up with over the years. Matches are good, another round-robin not so much. But there is no way invitations should be handed out by rating -- or by organizer or FIDE fiat. Playing for the championship means playing for it, so some sort of qualifier for the matches is required. Otherwise it's just another super-elite circle-jerk with all the drama of lukewarm soup. Sure, slapping the "world championship" tag on San Luis and Mexico City raised the stakes and the interest level, but they simply don't compare to the big matches and the build up of the candidate elimination process.
Instead of giving the same players as many chances as possible to succeed, give as many players as possible a chance to succeed. Bring some excitement and some new blood into the process. Most importantly, make the entire thing transparent, fixed, and promotable instead of corrupt, ever-changing, and practically untouchable.
Why don't we just ban the World Championship? It's almost worthless now that it's been messed with so much. Where's Kasparov when you need him to prove he's still the best anyway?
Are you kidding me? This disproves that great axiom: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This situation is so broken that I don't think anyone can fix it. What a shame. Pathetic, really.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Oh, no. Not again! FIDE must be a new acronym.
F@#KING IDIOTS DESTROYING EVERYTHING.
Sorry for the negativity Mig. You know me as a positive one, but this is tooooooooooo much, even for me. Take care of Baby and hope that she sees a better metaphor in this world than chess. 'Tis now a 64 square dispair. And all unnecessary.
Too ,,, tired ,, of ,,, FIDO ,,,, to ,, discuss ,, yet ,, again ,,, FIDOs ,, messy ,,, pants ,,,, zzzzzzzzzzz
"...it's just another super-elite circle-jerk with all the drama of lukewarm soup."
You go girl.
I have the simplest way to choose a challenger for the champion.
IMHO:
1st rated player of the year challenges the champion , but if he loses the match he can´t challenge for 3 years.
Next year the champion gets challenged by the same rule.
You lose a championship match , you can´t challenge for 3 years.
This gives us a championship match per year,which i think is pretty fair thing for both expectators and professional players.
Can you imagine that ?
One face to face match every year ...
That can really make chess something more solid to the general public and more atractive to the sponsors.
We need to be something worthy to be broadcasted, something the public can relate with.
A blunder by Ivanchuk.
The big thing is to have a World Championship match.
Between the reigning champion and the challenger.
That's where the money is, the drama, the perennial struggle bloggers can relate to.
Everything else is open for debate.
Ivanchuk's proposal deals with some fine details, but isn't far from Nunn's "simplify-it" and Kirsan's latest "put-everything-in-it" proposals.
Any way to find the challenger is ok, try to get it fair, try to find some continuity, don't mess with the current cycle.
Qualification by rating would be a disaster. Imagine all the players calculating their play precisely according to rating points; players at the outer rating limits calculating weaker events to pump their rating; those just inside not playing for months so not to risk a few points.. not to mention rising talents who gain points quickly possibly being excluded; strong players who experience one disastrous tournament losing out etc etc. The chess world is already overly fixated on rating.
I kinda like Ivanchuk's idea. We start with 12 and the World Champ, and then reduce 12 to 3 via an Elista event, to include the Champ in the final 4 on a separate stage. Simple.
However, it might look bad if the Champ is not in the final match, so we better add a FIDE-style codicil, that if the Champ loses in the semifinal he (or she) can then challenge the new Champ to a re-match, upon an application of 250,000 euros to FIDE. Launching into full sarcasm mode... But if the Champ loses in the final, then, at his option, he can challenge any (or all) of: the third-place finisher of the World Champ; the highest rated player on any rating list that year; the winner of any event bearing the FIDE name that year; or a 2700+ (on any list in the year) named by the organiser, and then the winner of that can then challenge the Champ if the deadline for the start of the next cycle is not within 45 days of the receipt of bank guarantees for administrative fees (though not prize monies) in the FIDE account. Contracts could be written up in this manner, but that would probably be superfluous...
The simple solution is to go back to the trusted system used in the old good times... Zonals , Interzonals, Candidates Matches or Candidates Tournament ( NO knockout but round robin ) and the winner becomes the Challenger to the reigning Champ. It worked out fine for decades , before the barbarians from Kalmukya stepped in , so there's no need of anything else.
The main obstacle to conducting a fair, intelligent system is the players' irrational financial expectations.
The zonals, interzonals and candidate matches of 3Foischer and Tal's days were possible only because players were playing for (very small)amounts of money that accurately reflected the game's popularity and sponsorship potential.
The top player's participation was subsidized by the USSR (given that the overwhelming majority was Soviet). Most non-Soviet players held regular occupations to make a living.
Chess has never been a real profession and that's the problem.
So, before anyone, including Mig, engages in fantasies of zonals, interzonals, candidate matches and other nice scenarios, an objective analysis of the project's financial feasability must be conducted.
Where's will the money come from?
How much/little are the top players willing to play for?
The lack of sponsorship money, coupled with the players' belief that they can make a living from the game has resulted in the mess that always follows chess. It turns players into prostitutes with clients like Kirsan.
Any proposal (from John Nunnn, Ivanchuck or Joe Blow) that ignores chess' financial reality is an exercise in futility and a waste of the reader's time.
Why do we need a world champion? Really.
Irv the old system served fairly well until the early 90es and the Schism. Even then all the top players were professionals. I only add that , just on financial grounds , it would be easier and more rational to organise a few zonals , an Interzonal and a Candidate Tournament than begging around , looking for sponsors for a plethora of Gran Prix events , with the sad result of having lots of them canceled and/or deported to Kalmukya.
I conclude that Dr Nunn's proposals sound a bit more reliable than the ones from Joe Blow or Irv..With due respect..
@chesshire:
All the players already do that , and if you look at the ratings in the last years you will find that ratings is a very fair way to choose a challenger.
And of course it should be a minimum number of games you must play to be able to challenge.
"make the entire thing transparent, fixed, and promotable"
Not all of us miss the fixed matches of the past! ;-)
Irv ... you hit the nail on the head. Or should I say, you accurately describe the problem. But what is the/a solution?
Ashish said:
"Irv ... you hit the nail on the head. Or should I say, you accurately describe the problem. But what is the/a solution?"
The solution is for chess players to be willing to accept that their income will reflect the market's interest in their product/service/show/whatever.
It applies to engineering, basketball, to oil, to movies and virtually everything else.
The level of sponsorship for chess and chess events does not really provide for the millions of dollars necessary to organize a series of elimination events (in whatever format) leading to a World Championship contest with all the big money prizes that chess players have been earning for the last 2 decades.
Now, don't get me wrong: chess players can and SHOULD demand the highest dollar amount they can get for their performance. The key is to determine what's realistic and what is not. For example: a Leko-Ponomariov or Adams-Svidler or Kamsky-Mamedyarov or Onischuk-Polgar 8-game match woulde pit some of the top-20 players in the world. But how much money can they REALISTICALLY expect to get in the absence of a wealthy patron like Kirsan? No more than US$50.000 per player, I would say. Now, let's say that the 8-game match is one of 4 Candidates Match leading to the selection of a world championshio match. The organization of such match would run the sponsor/organizer around $250.000: 100k in player fees alone plus hotel fees, short-term help salaries, food, travel, publicity, taxes if appicable, chess supplies, security, insurance, etc.etc.
Pretty soon the bill for 4 small candidates matches costs ONE MILLION DOLLARS. We are not even mentioning the cost of 3 more matches plus the final match for the world championship or even the series of events leading to the selection of the players for our 4 Candidate matches.
Problem with above scenario: top players would be insulted to be offered US$50.000 for a candidates match! They MISTAKENLY think their performance attracts the same level of interest that a Kasparov or Fischer event generated.
The world was interested in Kasparov-Deep Thought or even the epic K-K series. The world was literally sallivating at the prospect of Fischer, the lonely American Cowboy, taking on the "evil" soviet Empire.
Nobody knows or gives a F***K about Kamsky-Topalov. Only chess players care. The world knows Kobe Bryant, Beckham, Ronaldinho, Bill Gates, Shakira, Mike Tyson and Obama. By comparison, nobody knows Veselin Topalov, the highest ranking player.
My point: the chess establishment needs to come to terms with its own reality in order to get rid of the insanity and to stop chracters like Kirsan from hijacking players' destinies.
Off topic: let's see how Nakamura does against Carlsen and Svidler at Gjovik.
I fully agree with Irv. However the final match of the world chess championship still atracts decent sponsorship money. Anand-Kramnik still had a purse north of 1 million dollars (or Euros, I am not sure). Same for Kramnik-Leko I think. The final match is where there is still big money involved.
The problem is atracting sponsorship for the elimination events required to determine a challenger to the world champion. The sad truth is that sponsors are not interested in those elimination events. Elite chess players have to come to terms with this state of affairs.
I think Fide should drastically simplify these eliminations events. I have in mind a system that is not elitist, that allows all strong GMs a chance to have a go at the world chess championship if they so wish, and is not expensive to run. Something like this:
1. Three year cycle.
2. In Year 1 a swiss tournament is held with 13 rounds. Only GMs rated 2600 or higher are allowed to participate (plus a few players qualified from continental championships and a few wild cards). No player is allowed to withdraw from the tournament once it gets started unless serious medical condition is determined by tournament MD. No short draws allowed. Prize fund of say US$250,000. Winner takes US$50,000 the balance is split evenly for places 2nd to 21st. Players to pay for all their expenses. I estimate a tournament like this would atract some 100 players. One can run a tournament like this in 17 days (one arrival day, one departure, two rest days, plus 13 days).
3. In Year 2 another swiss is held as per above.
4. In Year 3 a match betwee winner of Swiss 1 and Swiss 2 play a 10 game match to determine the challenger to the world champion. Purse of at least $100,000 split evenly.
5. Winner of candidates match above to play world champion at the end of Year 3 in a match of 14 games. Purse to be determined by bidding process. Highest bid wins.
What do you guys think?!
Ed
Irv, if you can't answer the question then just don't post. Your solution is for the players to "get real" and accept their sorry-ass lot in the marketplace, yet you also encourage them to get into chess for the money and demand top dollar ("don't get me wrong", LOL)...??? I'll take Kirsan's gangster stewardship over your leadership "vision", which is no more than an excuse to retread your graft, prostitution and sodomy fetishes in post after bottomless post.
So hey GMs, guess what? You JUST DON'T GET IT! It's not Kirsan, YOU'RE the problem. But there's a way out, children: just follow Irv.
But let's recap anyway: Garry Kasparov was the biggest draw in chess history. And he managed, in the process of his domination, both to cripple chess politics AND alienate financiers who were ready (nay on the VERGE) to throw in for chess. He then left the sport to the Kirsan mercy fest, in which confusion is the guiding principle to ensure that no one GM dominates enough to cause trouble again. Scrutiny is low and Kirsan continues to avoid prison.
So in this light, tut-tutting the GM's and calling them deluded whores may not be the strongest move in the position. But as always, Irv knows best.
Perhaps this simple idea has been tried before, but how about they all pay a fixed fee to a professional exterior agency (i.e. not FIDE) solely devoted to promoting and creating chess events, image and sponsorship?
Clubfoot, what are you talking about? irv has a simple point, you have a lot of adjectives. When no one cares about a random match or tournament with a couple of top-ish players, guess what-you cannot expect good money. There can be some Kirsan, a cigar company, or a lady attracted to of the contestants, but that's not the kind of sponsorship we are talking about, right?
Ed,
even with 13 rounds, a swiss with 100+ players will yield a somewhat random winner, almost guaranteed on either tie-breaks or rapid/blitz play-off after 5-8 players scored the same amount of points.
That two somewhat random winners of two such events go through to finally challenge the champion, isn't my idea of a good system.
I'd prefer the top 8 finishers (or something) in year 1 playing some kind of candidate event in year 2 - whether they play a double round robin or two short minimatches and a slightly longer final match (4 + 4 + 6 games) for instance, is less important.
That being said, I'm not sure your (entire) scheme is what I'd choose, if I could create something new from scratch.
Clubfoot wrote:
"Irv, if you can't answer the question then just don't post. Your solution is for the players to "get real" and accept their sorry-ass lot in the marketplace, yet you also encourage them to get into chess for the money and demand top dollar ("don't get me wrong", LOL)...??? I'll take Kirsan's gangster stewardship over your leadership "vision", which is no more than an excuse to retread your graft, prostitution and sodomy fetishes in post after bottomless post."
I stand by my statement: chess players SHOULD demand the MOST MONEY for their performance. However, that "MOST MONEY" should reflect market conditions.
So, please, stop making false accusations ("you also encourage them to get into chess for the money ") and childish statements ("But as always, Irv knows best").
From reading previous posts of yours, I believe you can do much better than that.
frogbert,
Your point is taken, 13 rounds may be short and thus generate a random winner. May be 15 rounds then. However bear in mind that every strong GM in the world will have 26 games (2 swiss tournaments) to prove he or she is a worthy challenger to the champion.
There is a trade off here. Of course we all want a system with a large enough number of games in order to avoid randomness. However it is hard to find sponsorship for such a system (Fide for example cannot find sponsors for the Grand Prix). We must be pragmatic.
In case of a tie for first in this swiss of 13 or 15 rounds I would definitely favour some sort of tie-break method over blitz or rapid play offs. This will encourage fighting chess in the last rounds as the GMs will realize that equal first in points is not enough. All GMs will be trying to beat the guy with the better tie break during the last rounds.
To become world champion a GM will have to win a swiss of say 15 rounds, win a candidates match of 10 games, and then beat the champion in a match of 14 games. Total of 39 games. No chance for randomness here!
Clubfoot, you have got to be the biggest idiot who ever made a post.
"I'll take Kirsan's gangster stewardship over your leadership "vision"..." I don't even have to respond to that, you prove yourself a flaming idiot right there...
"Garry Kasparov was the biggest draw in chess history." If you'd stopped there, you would have been OK. But no, you had to continue running you big, stupid mouth...
"And he managed, in the process of his domination, both to cripple chess politics AND alienate financiers who were ready (nay on the VERGE) to throw in for chess." Let's see, what shape was chess politics in BEFORE Kasparov arrived? Right... a total mess! And what kind of money was chess bringing in BEFORE Kasparov? Certainly not the MILLIONS it did, thanks to Kasparov (yes, Fischer got it off the floor, but Kasparov made top players RICH).
"He then left the sport to the Kirsan mercy fest, in which confusion is the guiding principle to ensure that no one GM dominates enough to cause trouble again. Scrutiny is low and Kirsan continues to avoid prison." OK, now you contradict yourself. What happened to your " 'I'll take Kirsan's gangster stewardship...' "?
"So in this light, tut-tutting the GM's and calling them deluded whores may not be the strongest move in the position. But as always, Irv knows best." Well you just proved Irv knows a lot more than you do. Do us all a favor and SHUT YOUR STUPID PIE-HOLE!
The problem is not even giving the same players as many chances as possible to succeed. The problem is giving them many chances to accomplish absolutely nothing or next to nothing. A win in a 6-game match? A round-robin for the championship? An event in which thanks to one good game Al-Nobody can knock out a top contender? I will pass. An event like that proves nothing to me, certainly not who the top chess player or the top contender for the championship. Having a roulette wheel where each number would mean a win by a different top ten would probably do as well in establishing the top contender as most of the systems we had in the past 8 years.
But if you want to promote chess you need to accept that the audience cannot follow marathonic events.
We need that unfair all or nothing element in our game.
Risk is a mayor guest in broadcasting.
What event in recent chess history do you consider marathonic and unfollowed for that reason?
You don't even have to have a marathon, you can have a more legitimate thing than World Cup that will take just as many days.
Candidates: 6 or 8 games has been followed more than have been the round-robins of similar length.
"We need that unfair all or nothing element in our game."
You need it. Nobody else does.
"Risk is a mayor guest in broadcasting."
Al Cowlings is a major guest at OJ Simpson's house. What does that even mean?
IMHO, the challenger for the year is simply the highest rated player on the January 1 list who is willing to play for the worldchampionship and capable of coming up with the $1M prize money.
Simple as that.
We will then have a worldchampionship match every year.
"I stand by my statement: chess players SHOULD demand the MOST MONEY for their performance. However, that "MOST MONEY" should reflect market conditions."
Circuitous and meaningless. Again, if you have nothing to add, don't post.
The Oxford Companion to Chess gives an uncited formula that the number of top places "well-determined" by an N-round Swiss with P players is approximately (5N-P)/7. So the old 13-round 64-player event would be just positive.
However, Swiss = collusion (in late rounds), most likely. This can happen either explicitly, or more likely implicitly, where one player can win a top spot with a win, while the other would still be half-point short (or has worse tie-breaks). And I also have misgivings about the above guesstimate.
"We will then have a worldchampionship match every year."
We will also have a worldchampionship match every year if the criteria is "the player with the largest number of vowels in last year" willing to pay $1.
And no, not necessarily even then. Somebody's money would not clear, somebody would say the funds were not deposited, Kirsan would run away with the George.
My criteria is not occurrence and frequency, but rather that there be a match which puts head to head the current champion and a player who has won a tournament that is set up so that there is a strong probability of the best player winning.
"I stand by my statement: chess players SHOULD demand the MOST MONEY for their performance. However, that "MOST MONEY" should reflect market conditions."
Circuitous and meaningless. Again, if you have nothing to add, don't post.
>>>>>
I'll add that my statemnt is valid, in spite of your best efforts to deny the truth: chess players need to face the reality that those juicy paychecks don't come from the game. They come from Kirsan and other unsavory characters who rightfully expect to get something in return for their money. In Kirsan's case, it is control of FIDE and FIDE events.
If players don't want the chaos, they will have to face reality. As simple as that, Club. Sorry for the inconvenience.
"They come from Kirsan and other unsavory characters who rightfully expect to get something in return for their money. In Kirsan's case, it is control of FIDE and FIDE events."
Player-blaming again. You contribute nothing but imaginary situations and dimestore tautology. You have nothing to say. But keep posting, by all means. It gets more interesting to watch you wriggle away from the truth whenever you're lucky enough to enter the same galaxy.
Denying that Kirsan is in charge of FIDE bacause of his money and the money he brings into chess only helps you lose whatever little credibility you had left, Clubfoot.
You can't conduct an honest argument, as anyone can see from your repeated lies and silly accusations.
End of argument for me. I'll let you have the last word :-)
Trademark and predictable Irv style: when you're lost and you can't understand why, put words in your opponents mouth:
"Denying that Kirsan is in charge of FIDE bacause of his money and the money he brings into chess only helps you lose whatever little credibility you had left"
..and call him a liar:
"You can't conduct an honest argument, as anyone can see from your repeated lies"
You lose, kid. But you already knew that, you just felt you needed to keep talking to defend yourself, which is where the comedic element enters.
The last word is -- YAWN
I wish we could take Irv and Clubfoot to the Burning Man Thunderdome, to see who's REALLY the baddest. ;-)
The winner of a match between the incumbent worldchampion and the highest rated player as the challenger IS a worthy worldchampion in my book.
No excuses for money not clearing, etc. He would not be a challenger. The challenger is the next one with the money assured.
"The winner of a match between the incumbent worldchampion and the highest rated player as the challenger IS a worthy worldchampion in my book."
In nearly everybody's book, I think. The point made was that it's important to have a worthy worldchampion, not to have frequent (annual) worldchampionship match.
"No excuses for money not clearing, etc."
Here is what happens in your system. #6 through 10 don't bid, because they figure one of the top five will bring forth the money. #2 through 5 will have incredible difficulties raising money, since even if they find a sponsor, they can't guarantee to him the event will take place ("well, I want several thousand dollars from you? sir? and can we book a venue? but see there are these 2 guys ahead of me, who can make it so that you are sponsoring absolutely nothing"--hard enough to raise funding for things that are at least on paper confirmed). #1 raises the money and follows all the rules, but Kirsan finds a way to screw him over and steal the money anyway.
Plus, in recent history, the funding that seemed assured and legitimate on January 1st disappeared into phantom air by February 1st. What will you do? Restart bidding? For how long will you keep going, before restarting the cycle anew, if highest-ranked assured money disappears again? Do you think the sponsors who were willing to do it on January 1st for lower-ranked players will stick around after they were told "No, thank you"? Sorry, while your idea is good in theory the logistics seem to be near impossible.
Occam's razor, Yuriy.
I suggested the simplest system possible, incumbent worldchampion vs highest rated challenger with money.
If a failure for that simplest system can be concocted, then failure for the other, more complicated systems is even more likely.
Well, some interesting comments by Mr Carlsen reported on chessbase: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5129
Anyone watching the thrilling second Leko-Ivanchuck rapid game today? The sponsors gave it a standing ovation.
Could you post a link for that, CC?
The moves are given (among other places) at the TWIC site (http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html).
Enjoy every single one of them ... for a total of 16 (or rather 12 followed by a repetition).
"Game of the Century".
Leko-Ivanchuck, rapid match 2009
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nf3 Qc7 8.a4! Be7 9.Be2! O-O 10.a5! Nc6 11.Bb6! Qb8 12.Nd5!!! Nxe4 13.Bc7!! Qa7 14.Bb6!! Qb8 15.Bc7!! Qa7 16.Bb6!! ½-½
A sordid affair. I must cut down on my sarcasm, the doc says theres a danger of OD.
But I thought players let their hair down a little in rapid.
@yury :
very simple answer : The grand prix .
Marathonic , and pointless system.
I see you dont have a clue about broadcasting and promoting something, so lets not make this another stupid argument.
See u@.
In the second game Leko-Ivanchuk, 11.-Qb8 was apparently new and possibly deserving "!". After all, white could have won the exchange afterwards (putting the knight rather than the bishop to c7) - but probably the strong center gives black sufficient compensation or more, at least for a rapid game?
The three other games lasted longer (79, 85 and 62 moves) and had 'no remaining questions' in the final drawn positions ... still, Gjovik had the more exciting rapid games so far.
One new move, and Leko forces a draw. Surely what he played cannot be the only option for White.
Ivanchuck seems to be making all the running so far, I hope he breaks through, and ends up with more than K and N v K. That reminds me, I read that one time Fischer played down to bare kings and then continued grimly moving, to the shock of his opponent. That's the spirit!! :)
Carlsen, or maybe his father, makes some good points. However, the details on the KOs (from 64/128 to 8 players) need to be more detailed. If this is a "first stage", each match can be 4 games, and maybe 6 games in the latter parts, which is not too bad (nor that great), but having a 2-month stretch of 6 or 7 rounds of total-KO (option #1) looks prohibitive from many standpoints. With option #2, would anyone other than Elista want to host the preliminary 64-to-8 part? Could it be done regionally, or would that make the balancing of brackets, perhaps already not too simple, essentially impossible?
As to a double round-robin finale (option #3), how is this different, other than in name, from any 2750+ tournament like Linares? Particularly if the latter has a higher average rating, while the "World FIDE Chess Championship Final" perhaps ends up including a 2650 who happened to win 3 short matches in succession. Media considerations, such as billing Bilbao as the highest ELO event ever, cannot be ignored. The 2007 World Cup ended up with the 5,8,10,11,13,14,17,31 seeds in the final eight, and from a marketing point, that's not as nice as having half the top 10 playing in Linares. Furthermore, I think starting with a KO format but ending with a tournament is even more peculiar than the inverse, partially because tournaments are already abundant, and not-so with matches. Make the World Champ unique, somehow!
So my conclusion is that option #2 (64-to-8 on one stage, and then 8-to-2, then a Final) is the most "viable" of the three mentioned, at least in the immediate future.
Also, the "privileges" comments seem to suggest that the Champion should have no special preferences. This is again at odds with media attention, as the Champion has previously been one of the principal selling points in chess, similar to boxing. Would there consistenly be a $1 million sponsor for a 64-player KO followed by an 8-player final, in whatever format, without the *guarantee* of the "Defending Champion" in the final? Maybe FIDE can pull the monetary strings once, perhaps twice, but my guess is that there will need to be a significant perception change in the "Champion" status for this to work long-term. And I don't think the point the Carlsen intervention is to quick-fix the 2010-11 Champ, with yet another farrago of FIDE-fiddling to precede the next cycle. Hopefully there will be some more voices heard on this issue, and not just the players, but those with practical experience in organization and publicity.
Finally, and this is not directly related to my jaw-jabbery of above, when talking about privileges and the current "unificiation" of the chess world, he appears to elide the anti-privilege grievance regarding Topalov's exclusion from the thing called the 2007 World Championship. Though I actually think FIDE, as exercising "politics as the art of the possible", actually did a reasonable job here (as an aside, the politics have more recently devolved to the less pristine). Without trying to enkindle a flame-war: It would hard to include both Kramnik and Topalov in Mexico 2007, without any other conditions, while calling Elista 2006 a World Championship, so they took the 50% chance that Topalov would win the match and Kramnik, having not participated in the FIDE structure, would simply be excluded. For the chance of a unification, not an unreasonable wager. But this failed to gain the gravy, and so Topalov was left in a sticky wicket... and I leave the spin on the resulting machinations that have resulted to be re-counted by others....
"that's not as nice as having half the top 10 playing in Linares."
Last time, Morelia had 6 of the top 10 players. Only not Radjabov and Carlsen. Not bad. The FIDE Mexico had only the cinco. Elista World Cup was joke.
That's not Occam's razor. Occam's razor would be if the only difference between the two systems was simplicity (or rather, actually, the number of assumptions, which means that this principle does not apply here, but we are getting off track). As a more complex proposal would not be necessarily less viable or less fair. You are essentially proposing that a pogo stick would be a better device for getting a man on the moon because it's simpler than a rocket.
The problem with Grand Prix was that the sponsors tend to flake out. Especially the sponsors FIDE finds.
Not that chess fans were "unable to follow it because it took too long" or that "they wanted an unfair all or nothing" element.
It’s very important to make the good tv essay and just research papers to reach the A+ at the university.