Vladimir Kramnik seems to be going for more than an OTB makeover after his WCh match loss to Anand and his split with longtime manager Carsten Hensel. He seems to be looking for a new start on other fronts as well, all coinciding with the birth of his first child in France a few weeks ago. (I was startled to find out her name is the same as that of Garry Kasparov's wife, Daria (Dasha). No doubt a coincidence, and it's not an uncommon name, but it was still startling.) Kramnik came looking for a platform, a sort of "not that anyone asked, but..." The result was this interview with Frederic Friedel at ChessBase.
First there's some nice chitchat about fatherhood and childbirth -- I went through the same thing six months ago. Then there's a bunch of bizarre stuff about player questionnaires solving the problems of the chess world, as if Ilyumzhinov and FIDE could give a flying flock about what the players say whether it be in writing, on a conference call, or written on the wall in the Kalmykian presidential palace bathroom. It's what the players DO that matters, and as long as the broad majority of elite players keep lining up to do Kirsan's bidding, he has nothing to worry about. Right now the Grand Slam is the only hint of anything that would challenge Ilyumzhinov's position as the only game in town.
While I'm on that tangent, several sensible insiders (and there aren't many) have written to me to say I shouldn't be so harsh on Ilyumzhinov and FIDE about the mess with the Grand Prix since I don't know "what really went on." But that's the point. FIDE continues to do the business of the chess world as if it were a personal toy box instead of an international sports federation. If doing everything behind closed doors is deemed to be necessary then YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.
Back to Kramnik. After the rules have been changed in his favor several times, it's time to criticize the changing of the rules in the favor of others. Kramnik's proposal, however, isn't exactly for equal treatment for all, but making sure he is treated at least as well as Kamsky and Topalov.
"I am not asking for any privileges. The only thing I am asking for and insisting on is that I must have exactly the same rights as the loser of that match."
I guess that would be "fair" to Kramnik, if not the rest of the chess world. (FYI: Getting the same privileges as Topalov and Kamsky is still getting privileges.) Freddy then comes close to the right question, asking whether or not Kramnik would participate in a cycle from the bottom, along with the commoners, if Topalov and Kamsky are stripped of their post-match privileges. Kramnik says he would "be ready to play in Khanty-Mansiysk World Cup or anything." I would LOVE to see that happen, of course, because it would mean the ridiculous favoritism of Ilyumzhinov's proposed candidates tournament has been derailed. However, it's far more likely that if Kirsan has backing for the event he'll simply do the expected and proffer a spot to Kramnik, perhaps earlier than planned.
This is the way it usually goes, with more favors instead of fewer, more wrongs to try to make a right. Kramnik makes a valuable distinction by saying it's not about the individuals, but the system. Kamsky and Topalov inevitably will take offense and defend their privileges on some grounds other than the simple fact they belong to them and not to someone else. It's not wrong to defend your interests. The problem is that no one comes out against favoritism until they've collected their share. It's always fair when you're getting and always unfair when you're not. Kamsky can say he deserves it because he was forced to play this idiotic extra match with Topalov. Topalov can say he deserves it because he's the world #1 or whatever else pops into his head. But none of it has anything to do with what's fair. It all compounds the unfairness to the rest of the "unprivileged" players who just want a clean shot at playing for the world championship on a level field.
Just for a quibble, Kramnik also adds that the loser of a WCh match has "always" been seeded into the finals of the next cycle, which takes us back a mighty long way. Back then the challenger had battled through a brutal cycle in the first place and couldn't participate in the qualifier for the next cycle because he was preparing for and playing in the match. The other guy was the world champion. And while it was reasonable, if not essential, to skip the Grand Prix, the World Cup is still nearly a year away. But of course that's far from the main issue.
By all means, let's have questionnaires, hearings, phone calls, town hall meetings, whatever. But you aren't going to make all the people happy all the time and FIDE's changes aren't being done to accommodate players anyway, unless you mean what some players represent, by which I mean money. It would be interesting to see Kramnik reborn as an opposition leader, but I fear he's merely looking for leverage he'll swap for those privileges he's not asking for.
Kramnik concludes the first part of the interview by saying he won't be playing in Linares this year, which is a shame but understandable. I wouldn't trade my first months of fatherhood for anything and I hope Kramnik enjoys it as much as I have.
I agree with your point that if Kramnik would have the same rights as loser of Topa-Kamsky, that would not make the system any more fair as a whole.
Still, Kramnik's line is the only possible one which he can take. You cannot expect someone acting altruistically when everyone else is selfish.
And imagine if everyone would demand the same as Kramnik: that they get equal rights as the others, OTHERWISE THEY DROP OUT. That would, imho, fix the system immediately. Right now Carlsen, Adams, Aronian etc. are trying to do this thing. They (threaten to ) drop out if their right is downgraded. If every participant was clever enough to do so, Illumzhinov's new brilliant idea would simply vanish in a split second.
If we have to categorize selfish behavior, Kramnik is the one selfish who is at least not destructive. Speaking of Topailov, does anyone know whether Kramnik took him/them to that strip club Topa was speaking of during the match?
Its easy to adress Kramnik´s words: barbarism.
I dont fully agree with H Carlsen but at least his voice comes from civilization and democracy.
This is just another punk asking for the same toy the other boy has.
Kramnik never qualifyed for a WCH , thats unfair and i want the same treatment ,he he.
This is of their own doing (The FIDE conglomerate membership). They had a chance to dump Kirsan for a much better candidate and they didn't.
You reap what you sow.
It is my wish that the entire organization implodes and leaves Kirsan sitting on his thrown like the Lion King on the Island of Misfit Toys. The players need to stand up for their rights - and, I'm not saying Kramnik is doing this fairly - and bite the bullet, whether that means a few tournaments of less-than-spectacular prize funds.
Where has the prestige gone in the chess world? Kudos to those who are beginning to see that perhaps boycotts can be a useful tactic against "Kirsan The Terrible".
Mig,
Didn't Kramnik already have the same favor he is asking for? He was awarded a match with Anand after losing the world championship tourney earlier. So he was seeded directly into final as he has asked for. Unfortunately he lost it and now he has to start at the bottom.
And talking about favors, Anand is possibly the only world champion (at least in my knowledge) who has not been given any favors, privileges. Right from the days of his match with Karpov in 97 till now, he has not benefitted from privileges at all even though he was a challenger or number 1 or a world champion at different points of time.
Regards,
SJ
Thats why he is such a true champion , chess loves Vishy and Vishy loves chess.
Kramnik's statements sound a bit hypocritical. If he wants the basic fairness he talks about it's just to support Carlsen and Aronian in their stance that it is wrong to change the cycle. After all the Grand Prix is half finished and there are rules, agreements and contracts for how the cycle is to be played. If he really just wants to participate in the World Cup as everyone else it's just to say changing the cycle is wrong.
Instead he repeats over and over again that the cycle change can benefit Carlsen and Aronian, it doesn't compromise their rights, chess lovers will enjoy a change from the agreed match to a tournament, he doesn't even understand how Carlsen and Aronian can be critical.
As Doggers puts it at Chessvibes: "What’s this? Has he lost it? A child can tell you that the chances to become world champion decrease significantly when as a winner of the Grand Prix you suddenly have to play a tournament to qualify for the world title match, instead of a semifinal match".
"Anand is possibly the only world champion (at least in my knowledge) who has not been given any favors, privileges."
I agree Anand's conduct has been pretty much exemplary, but he has been offered various privileges, not least of which was the opportunity to play Kasparov in 2000, before it was offered to Kramnik. He also had other opportunities to challenge for the "classical" title, but chose to remain with FIDE. It's only now he's considered the undisputed champion, so let's see what happens.
"As Doggers puts it at Chessvibes: "What’s this? Has he lost it? A child can tell you that the chances to become world champion decrease significantly when as a winner of the Grand Prix you suddenly have to play a tournament to qualify for the world title match, instead of a semifinal match"."
Yes, but that's only if you win the Grand Prix - obviously the chances of being in the top 2 or 3 are much greater, and would allow you to stay in the cycle. Shirov, for instance, was fairly positive about the change. It's silly to represent Carlsen as being concerned only by issues of fairness (I doubt he'd say the same himself) - the fact that he'd have been spending Christmas Day back in Elista rather than at the planned luxury warm weather location presumably affected his recent decision.
I'd like to see Kramnik simply given an equal chance of qualifying along with the rest of the elite, but when guys like Danailov can manipulate things so that their player automatically qualifies even if he loses a (bizarre) qualifier, or loses to Anand, there's not much point in selflessness.
Anand has also benefited by FIDE's idiotism - the exclusion of Topalov from the Mexico tournament. Of course, that was not an act favoritism towards him, but he nevertheless greatly(!) benefited.
Mishanp comments:
I agree Anand's conduct has been pretty much exemplary, but he has been offered various privileges, not least of which was the opportunity to play Kasparov in 2000, before it was offered to Kramnik. He also had other opportunities to challenge for the "classical" title, but chose to remain with FIDE.
Mishanp,
But that's the whole ppoint. Even after siding with Fide and being Fide world champion he has not got any privileges. Isn't Fide the one offering the privileges throughout the history? (that even Kasparov complained initially when worked against him in the 80s).
Kasparov's offering match to Anand can not count because he was looking for a worthy opponent, a match with whom would have attracted prize money funding. And in any case, Anand did not take it so he remains blemishless.
Regards,
SJ
I thought the same thing when I heard Kramnik's daughter was named Daria.
Nice post.
John.
"Isn't Fide the one offering the privileges throughout the history? (that even Kasparov complained initially when worked against him in the 80s)."
I don't know - after the split and before Topalov/Danailov being FIDE champion didn't do a great deal for you. The question of Kasparov and who was shown favouritism (Karpov resolutely claims Kasparov was actually favoured)is a whole different can of worms.
"Kasparov's offering match to Anand can not count because he was looking for a worthy opponent, a match with whom would have attracted prize money funding."
Probably true, but accusations of handing out privileges generally also take in that type of "good" reason. Kramnik or Topalov, who have been at the centre of most of the accusations, can both point to "good" reasons why they deserve them.
"And in any case, Anand did not take it so he remains blemishless." I agree with that. Only that I don't know it would have been a blemish to accept some of the opportunities he was given. And I don't think Anand staying with FIDE wasn't also motivated by calculated self-interest (again - no criticism implied!).
I like the way chessbase mix the birth of Kramniks daughter with his chidlish complaints about the cycle.
The thing is that there is no way that he will get a second free pass to the WCH match.
Kramnik knows that and is also very aware that defending the title is far more easy for him than playing against the elite for the right to challenge.
Lets forget the cycles and privileges for a moment , lets pretend that everything is fair in the chess world.
Ok , in that utopic world : who would be the challenger to the crown next year?
What would make Kramnik a decent challenger to the world title?
Even Lekos fans must know by now that Topalov is first in that list.
Anand won the undisputed world championship tournament in 2007, defended it against Kramnik in 2008 will play the winner of Topalov-Kamsky in 2009 and if he holds on will again play the next cycle in 2010. I think that is quite ridiculous. For starters his performance in the rest of the year (think Bilbao) will fall off shortly if he has to play a WCC every year. I think he should get at least a years break between the matches/tournaments whatever.
To jaideepblue:
He doesn't have much time left (getting old), so an accelerated schedule may be good for him. Money is good too. Maybe he actually likes it this way.
Kramnik is a hypocrite and a coward, period. He knows well he can't compete against the elite on equal terms, so wants MORE special treatment.
Btw, he says in the chessbase interview, that he likes Linares, and it makes sense, at Linares a drawmaster like him has chances of winning. That's about the only sort of competitions where he has hope of surviving.
I wish he would be at Wijk, THERE he would be given a lesson of good chess.
In my opinion, it's beside the point IF Kramnik should or shouldn't get the same unfair, pointless meaningless privileges as Topalov/Kamsky. Chances are still huge though, that UEP will/would be the organizer of these "candidates" if the suggestion goes through - and that means Kramnik already will be in.
Still, the above is meaningless and irrelevant to me.
Like i basically wrote (with fewer words) in a different thread yesterday:
Kramnik's statements
1) in reality show NO understanding for the OBVIOUS break of contract with the GP participants (his ridiculous "only a change of format" notion is something only dishonest or really dumb people can claim)
2) include NO principled thoughts about the wc cycle in the future
3) voice a FAKE unwillingness against both unfair privileges given and mid-air rule changes done by FIDE
4) mostly are concerned about HIS rights in the 2008-2011 cycle, and about HIM being treated unfairly by FIDE.
Technically Carlsen and Kramnik are in the same situation regarding this cycle now: none of them is (no more) part of the Grand Prix. [The Grand Prix was what I originally considered the MAIN route to a potential WC match in 2010/2011 for the top players - the World Cup has an intrinsic element of chance, and was there mainly to be an OPEN route technically available for ANYONE. That several of the top players decided to ditch the Grand Prix (either because they hoped to be World Champion, or) to play for tricks instead, should really be THEIR problem, not anybody else's.]
What does (Henrik) Carlsen do (on behalf of his son)? He presents principled thoughts about the future, in an effort to move things in a better direction.
What does Kramnik do? He's here and know, concerned about HIMSELF and nothing else.
I don't give a damn about Topalov/Kamsky at the moment - I've said quite clearly that they are accepting bribes and are behaving in an unprincipled and egotistical way by accepting the current proposal. Now we're discussing Kramnik and his attitude and his statements. Comparisons to Topalov and Kamsky (or the few other "currently privileged") aren't that interesting - compare Kramnik to Carlsen instead, and note the CLEAR difference.
Carlsen entered the Grand Prix and came shared first in his first (and only) event. Instead of just hinting at a withdrawal (like Aronian implicitly does), he simply withdrew when it became obvious that FIDE would treat this situation in their standard, amateurish way, with nobody knowing anything for certain for months, making it impossible to plan 2009 as a tournament year, and make arrangements with SERIOUS organizers. Those who think Carlsen's withdrawal was mainly about "warm weather in luxury" versus "cold winter in Elista" obviously know nothing about being an elite player and making contracts with organizers. Basic CERTAINTY about your schedule is key. (For instance Carlsen had to turn down Pearl Spring because he was supposed to play Doha.) Carlsen basically withdrew due to his own interests - to ensure the possibility of having a clear and certain schedule for 2009 and later - but he does so in a principled way, without reducing anybody else's opportunities in the WC cycle. Rather the opposite, actually
And Carlsen doesn't iterate his 1st place in Baku, his lost rights or suggests ways for FIDE to "compensate" what he lost by the unnecessary and badly thought out changes proposed, breaking contracts and so on. He simply doesn't enter any dubious dealings with FIDE: If layed out rules and agreements made won't be respected, then we're done. Instead, Henrik focuses on how to make things better in the FUTURE, and emphasizes TRANSPARENCY and reduction (eventually removal) of unfair privileges. By remaining from pushing their own "rights", it's possible to believe in those statements.
Crap like Kramnik's "I'm not asking for privileges, I only ask for basic fairness" is so fake and dishonest that Kramnik should be ashamed. It would be MUCH better (but still wrong) if he'd said, plain and square:
"I don't care for the future now, I'll try the best I can to make my qualification route as easy as possible then too, whatever it takes. Right now I just want to maximize my chances for getting to the candidate event without having to qualify. Whether it'll be via the organizer or because I won the unification match in 2006, I don't care. But at a minimum I want the same privileges as the loser of Kamsky/Topalov."
That is what i consider his "true" message. Not very honorable, of course, but still way better than the nonsense I read over at Chessbase.
Topalov fans can safely spare us their praise about Topa's greatness in this respect: It's neither relevant nor undebatable. The near-accepted habit of asking for/claiming and accepting unfair privileges, is at the center of the rotten basement of Kirsan's "house". In my opinion, Kramnik isn't even near approaching the real problems here, and nor does he seem to really care for making changes in the future.
Very disappointing stuff, to put it short. And this comes from someone who's rather positive to Kramnik prior to these statements. I consider him a truely great chess player - but clearly no role model for anyone who wants to save FIDE and the World Championship.
"if he holds on will again play the next cycle in 2010."
To be precise, the current cycle is 2008-2011 (that is, the one after the semi-final Topalov/Kamsky 2009 and the winner's match against Anand). The final of the cycle started in 2008 was originally scheduled for 2010, but has been moved to 2011.
So, even if still tight, Anand will "only" have to play 2 World Championship defences during 2009-2011, with the current schedule. But that might change any day, of course.
I wrote 'By remaining from pushing their own "rights"'
It should be REFRAINING of course. Stupid typos.
Topalov has been virtual number 1 for the last 10 weeks continously now, or 16 of the last 17 weeks, the last 2 official lists, and is about 40 points clear of Morozevich in 3rd. He can get in as the top rated player (not counting Anand being champ) with very high chance- he does not need the privelege. It mainly suits Kamsky.
WHich rating list would they use by the way? If it is in a year's time I guess Topalov could do with the privelege just in case he has a bad year.
Nice to see Vlady is propagating his genes with the help of his lovely wife. Hopefully Daria (Dasha) will take up chess and inherit Vlady's positional acumen.
Wonder when Vishy and his lovely wife gets on with the business of producing an offspring? Isn't it getting a little risky for them (Down's and such ...) the more they delay?
Chessbase (Friedel) mixed the interview of some very personal
matters, as well as some outrageous stuff to the effect of making
me feel bad to call the crazy stuff out for what it is. But since
I had a child too, 2 months ago, I know how it feels and it's
certainly no reason to give someone a free pass when
disseminating nonsense.
Anyway, regarding the WC Cycle comments -- if VK was just being
disingenuous, I'd not be surprised, as it is normal for him. But
the stuff he brings up is downright pitiful and makes me feel bad
for him, really. It's such a chutzpah to ask for more privilege,
considering his history that makes me wonder whether Hansel’s
absence doesn't have something to do with such unfiltered crap
flowing out so readily.
D.
P.S. Ohh, and the questionnaire stuff was grotesque. I have the
feeling that CB needs traffic, so they're running a bit of a
circus of the holidays... That’s the sensation I get when reading
that interview…
Slightly off topic:
Kramnik and his old team did a remarkable dive last year:
Bareev -32 Jan.08: 2677 Jan.09: 2645
Kramnik -40 Jan.08: 2799 Jan.09: 2759
Svidler -40 Jan.08: 2763 Jan.09: 2723
Van Wely -56 Jan.08: 2681 Jan.09: 2625
Frogbert you’re a Star!!!, Kramnik has always been a hypocrite (liar if you prefer) masked with his facade of a smile...
Several years ago when he lost his Match to Kamsky...
Kramnik's statement about Matches was' 'He finds match play boring' because he sees the same player over and over again' and he simply loses motivation'
...Fast forward to 2000 when he gets an undeserved ‘Privileged’ match with Kasparov...
Kramnik's opinion about matches changes a full 360 degrees... Absolutely Incredible!
Lets discuess Kasparov - Kramnik for a second.
1. Kasparov insisted Kramnik join the Russian Olympiad team in the early stages of his career, thanks to Kasparov’s influence Kramnik was given this ‘Privilege’ (Of all the privileges in Kramnik’s career this is the only One I agree with)
2. Kasparov selects Kramnik as ‘Privileged’ Second for his Match against Anand...(Kramnik must have learnt a lot here)
3. Kasparov handpicks Kramnik after losing to Shirov for a ‘Privileged’ match, which Kramnik wins.
4. Kramnik now insists Kasparov should now qualify to play him...it's only 'Fair' for Kasparov should not be given any 'Privileges' (Oh My God??)
Lets fast Forward to Kramnik - Leko
1. Leko 'Qualifies' (Something Kramnik has never done in his ‘Privileged’ career) after a gruelling Dortmund to face Kramnik
2. Kramnik is given the 'Privilege' of Match Draw Odds.
3. Kramnik draws the match, retains title... and ohh yes his legacy of Match Play specialist improves.
Fast forward to Topalov - Kramnik
1. Kramnik is invited to play San Luis to unify World Championship which he declines, naturally supporting the Privilege of 'Match play Heritage'
2. Topalov wins San Luis convincingly to which Kramnik re-surfaces and claims for the 'Privilege of a match. (No surprise there)
3. Kramnik's request granted (Sometimes I wonder, who really has more Powerful influence over FIDE? Danailov, Topalov & Bulgarian Mafia or Kramnik, Putin & Russian Mafia)
4.Kramnik wins toiletgate match. (It’s a pity the real truth as to what really happened in Elista between the Russian, Bulgarian and FIDE camp will probably never be known...until then we chess fans can only speculate)
On to Anand - Kramnik
1. Kramnik gets 'Privilege' to play Mexico ( Dear Reader I hope your counting the number of 'Fair' Privileges Kramnik has got throughout his career. )
2. Anand wins.. to which Kramnik suggests the title was loaned and must be decided in a match. (Again no surprise there)
3.Kramnik 'Privileges' continues, his request granted. (Forget Powerful friends, Kramnik MUST be friends with GOD himself!)
4. He gets beaten...Badly (Ok there is a GOD and it’s not on Kramnik's side...so Kramnik's very influential Powerful friend must be the DEVIL himself.)
Back To Present
1.Kramnik comes up with a statement via Chessbase (Part of Kramnik’s alliance I must add, nothing wrong there, we all need friends, especially ones with influence) complaining about Unfairness and Privileges granted to other???
I don’t even have the English words to express my Horror.
It makes the Word 'Hypocrite' almost sound like a compliment if said to anyone else.
2. Quite frankly if any Top 100 player was given 50% of the ‘Privileges’ Kramnik has had bestowed on him, they too would be World Champion and for some maybe twice!
3. It actually makes me wonder how much more privileges Kramnik been given in Top tournaments like Linares, Dortmund ...etc that the general public are not even aware of?
3. Compared to Kramnik, Topalov's privileges is next to Nothing... yet sadly, biased minds emphasizes on this fact a lot more.
4. Kramnik as far as I am concerned is the most 'Privileged' Chess player to grace the Chess world.
4. His Legacy has been Over-Hyped without concrete statistical facts to support it.
5. Chess Does not need individuals like Kramnik... the undertone and lack of consistency of his statements just shows how he underestimates chess fans intelligence (He probably thinks where all daft)
6. But Kudos to Kramnik!!! He is playing chess not just on the Board but Outside it... and so far he is Winning BIG TIME!
7. Its Shocking...Absolutely shocking that only a few see through Kramnik's facade.
Are we really that gullible? Let alone Chess players?
Rather than call Kramnik...GM, Drawnik or Mr Petrov... He should be called GP (Grand Privilege)
from now on.
I can only await with interest where his next 'privilege' is coming from?
There is a big omission in your post , a rather relevant one.
Kramnik chose Dortmund as a qualyfier tournament for him knowing that Kasparov would never play there (they didnt recognize his title of World Champion?! ).
And that leads to your suggestion of what other privileges he might have in the past that most of us dont know.
Well , Kramnik won Dormunt many times...
anyone remember this?:
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/owenbrain.html
That tournament didnt have Kasparov or Anand , so Kramnik ended up playing Leko?! but with draw odds.
In my opinion is not his play outside the board that gave him all those privileges, more likely his empathy with Putin is making the magic lately.
"1. Kramnik gets 'Privilege' to play Mexico ( Dear Reader I hope your counting the number of 'Fair' Privileges Kramnik has got throughout his career. )"
No, just musing that if your post's a parody of the inane sub-literate ramblings of a Danailov hanger-on it's quite brilliant.
frogbert - I do have sympathy for your position - and Kramnik might have chosen his words more carefully - but I think it's disingenuous to treat FIDE's actions as some horrific bolt out of the blue. Top GMs aren't naive, and those who signed up to the Grand Prix must have known as well as the rest of us that the chances of FIDE keeping to their stated plans were small (see e.g. what happened to Kamsky).
Sure, Kramnik stating that if the Topalov/Kamsky loser is going to be seeded then he should be too isn't a glorious act of self-abnegation, but despite the Topalov fans I think you'll find he's no more selfish than his fellow GMs. I'm sure principles (and disgust at FIDE) were a motivation for Carlsen and Aronian, but that would only really have been tested if they'd been rejecting a system of top-quality, well-funded and organised tournaments in attractive locations. The reality was far from it.
"1. Kramnik gets 'Privilege' to play Mexico"
I'd just like to dispute that playing in Mexico is a privilege. Kramnik was at that time the defending unified champion, so the only reasonable options would be to include him in Mexico or turn the tournament into a qualifier to play Kramnik for the title. (Which is a little like what happened, though we must make the important technical distinction that Anand would have still been FIDE champion for a little bit even if he lost to Kramnik, so the tournament was not really a qualifier.) You could argue that having a match with the winner after playing in it was a great privilege, but I don't see how you can say that playing in Mexico itself was a privilege.
coff acirce, coff acirce
btw, does anyone of you knows a good medicine against bitterness???
>Kramnik and his old team did a remarkable dive last year
Nice catch!
What do you mean? the blindest of all Kramnik zealots hasn't appeared since the downfall of his hero...
He's probably enjoying an exciting Petroff or polishing one of his latest Kramnik's action figures.
When is FIDE going to air the skype conference with Topalov and the rest?
What are they doing?, editing ?
Mmm ,this is like the White Stripes song: I think i smell a rat.
What would chessbase-FIDE-Kramnik want people to believe this time?
There is another serious thing to mention about Kramnik´s interview:
With a baby in arms and a big smile the guy is threatening the public with measures, i find that pretty pathetic.
There is already a more talented guy , he is only 18 , but he LEFT .
Also Adams left with dignity ,and besides:
What is Kramnik threatening us with ? To take the draws somewhere else?
Kasparov made mistakes in his career , but he never threatened the audience with his talent.
Off topic question : Can someone please explain me why there is a Kirsans picture in the front page of FIDE´s site?
Do they need to be so obviously corrupted?
mishanp,
I might respond by quoting a reaction I posted on chessvibes:
"I’m happy that one of the major chess news sites addresses the obvious “short-comings” in Kramnik’s statements, both regarding internal inconsistency and lack of perspectives on the future. Repeated “every man for himself” only serves those in position to “deal” with FIDE. It’s about time more players in such a position say a clear “NO” to further unfair privileges and dealings behind closed doors. It’s unfortunate that Kramnik doesn’t want to join the ranks of such players. I consider it a half-way confirmation that he’s rather happy with how things work at the moment."
My criticism is partly directed at his omissions - the things he doesn't feel any need to address, like how to make an actually fair system in the future, and partly at what I consider fakeness bordering to dishonesty in his statements.
The point regarding Carlsen's withdrawal from the GP, is that Henrik leaves that more or less behind - he looks forward and wants a shift of focus. Unlike Kramnik, he doesn't go on about them having been unfairly treated, making implicit or explicit "demands" about being "compensated" by new privileges or anything. The Carlsens deliver constructive views on how to move forward, with a proposition of a change in focus: transparency and predictability are more important than money and privileges.
I don't claim Carlsen left the Grand Prix for altrustic reasons mainly - like I said, it was a rational thing to do, in order to be able to plan his next 1-1,5 years of tournaments (In recent FIDE history, Ponomariov is the worst example of someone waiting around for something to settle, and it was no good for him and his chess). Carlsen's withdrawal doesn't really hurt anyone else, and it's not followed up with requests for special privileges, and whatever your position, it can be defended as a principled decision.
Kramnik _is_ in a position where it's possible to make a pull in the right direction. When he, if anything, does the opposite, I find that mighty disappointing.
Interesting theory, that having a president's face on the front of an organization's website is compelling evidence of corruption.
"Off topic question : Can someone please explain me why there is a Kirsans picture in the front page of FIDE´s site?
Do they need to be so obviously corrupted?"
Sorry to disappoint you, Mr Kramnik.
I will put it this way for you to understand. World Champions have avoided worthy challengers for years and years whenever they have chance and whenever they have public perception favoring them. I think they felt they have nothing to prove against when chess public is not demanding it from them. We know that is non-sense and we want a system to iron those things out. I don't want Anand to follow those foot steps. But if Anand were to be champion in 2010, why would he accept for such a match beforetime, when his title is not nearing expiry and when he has valid reasons to believe Kramnik hasn't proved his worthiness by taking up a privilege.
So, if things are going to unfold the way I said just now, Anand will probably take on Carlsen instead of Kramnik!
Kirsan/FIDE, note. Do you want to risk another breakaway?? Anand is not taking on Kramnik in a world championship match/tournament within 3 years from now!**.
Kremlin, note. No need to bank on Kramnik and pressure Kirsan. Send a better Russian candidate or please quit.
**Mr Kramnik, if you properly qualify, the championship is still on!!
Anyway, congratulations and enjoy precious moments with your little one, Mr Kramnik!!
I agree with Frogbert comments. I fully back Mister and Master Carlsen! FIDE should shift focus and address Carlsen's concerns without wasting time on things concerning Kramnik.
Kramnik-bashers are having a field day ... . You may or may not agree with his opinions and statements, that's not the point. frogbert may be right in calling him 'no role model', but still acknowledges that he is a 'truly great player'.
Now about some other posts:
@Declan:
"Btw, he says in the chessbase interview, that he likes Linares, and it makes sense, at Linares a drawmaster like him has chances of winning. That's about the only sort of competitions where he has hope of surviving.
I wish he would be at Wijk, THERE he would be given a lesson of good chess."
1) What is the actual difference between Linares and Wijk? If anything, Linares is the stronger tournament (less players, no advance outsiders or 'local heroes')? So why would Van Wely and Stellwagen 'give him a lesson of good chess' if stronger players cannot ??
2) In 2008, Kramnik's performance in Wijk was a mediocre 6.5/13 [but still ahead of Topalov ,:)]; the year before he scored 8.0/13 (1/2 point behind the winners, but not bad anyway)
3) What do you mean with 'surviving'??? Last year, Van Wely scored -5 in Dortmund, other players (e.g. Shirov) had similarly bad tournaments - to the best of my knowledge, they are still alive .... .
@Mig:
"not that anyone asked, but..."
With all respect, this is a bit odd. Other players (Carlsen, Aronian, Adams, did I forget anyone?) also wrote unsolicited open letters or chose their favorite Internet site to express their opinions. As far as Kramnik is concerned, Fredric Friedel DID ask. Taking the interview at face value, Kramnik even first hesitated to answer - OK this may have been part of the game they were playing with each other and the public. To me it is plausible that the whole thing started as a private telephone conversation, Kramnik telling a friend about the birth of his daughter - of course he must have agreed that this and other parts of their conversation were seubsequently published on the Internet.
And the very fact that this was subsequently picked up elsewhere (here and at Chessvibes) and led to heated blogging discussions indicates that Kramnik's opinions are interesting to the broader public (again, whether one agrees or not is a different story).
#To me it is plausible that the whole thing started as a private telephone conversation, Kramnik telling a friend about the birth of his daughter#
Kramnik may have been totally unprepared that the discussion suddenly would turn to the World Championship cycle, and was slightly surprised that his long and not particularly thought out statement on the cycle actually ended up published on the internet. (j/k)
Interesting point, and - reading through the interview again and taking it at face value - at least the part about the player questionnaire was not really meant for (immediate) release to the public. Kramnik literally said: "BETWEEN US [emphasis added], I think it is not the best way to solve problems."
However, Friedel probably did inform Kramnik that the conversation was recorded (isn't he legally obliged to do so?) and that he would publish it later on.
Lesson to be learnt: Be very careful about what you tell a journalist, even in a private conversation and even if he is also a friend of yours ... !?
Frogbert,
"Repeated “every man for himself” only serves those in position to “deal” with FIDE. It’s about time more players in such a position say a clear “NO” to further unfair privileges and dealings behind closed doors."
I still don't think it'll really accomplish anything if Kramnik, for instance, rejects privileges while Topalov & Kamsky take advantage of them. He does state clearly that he's happy to have no privileges at all, as long as everyone's in the same position.
"My criticism is partly directed at his omissions - the things he doesn't feel any need to address, like how to make an actually fair system in the future"
AS others have mentioned, I don't think you can treat this somewhat clumsy phone conversation/interview as a considered statement. Kramnik's offered a lot of considered views on the system before (to little effect). I also actually agree with his comments on the qualifying tournament proposed by FIDE - it's not a great system (and FIDE shouldn't change mid-process), but it has a better chance of selecting the strongest challenger than the original Grand
Prix/World Cup idea.
Re: the comparison with Carlsen. I think you're being unfair to Kramnik. Carlsen doesn't make any specific personal complaints (he mentions changing travel plans etc. that apply to all Grand Prix participants) as there are none to make. Carlsen has no leverage with FIDE (no involvement in world championship matches etc.) so he doesn't use it. It's an open question what he'd do in Kramnik's position (or at Kramnik's age).
Kramnik is an ex world champion.
He can say wat he want.
No one must do what he want or believe that he is right but he earns respect. He deserves it like Spassky or Kasparov or the world-champions of the past.
"He does state clearly that he's happy to have no privileges at all, as long as everyone's in the same position. "
In my opinion, that's highly hypothetical and about impossible to have confirmed. I'm not sure I'm ready to take his word on this. Obviously you are.
"Carlsen has no leverage with FIDE (no involvement in world championship matches etc.) so he doesn't use it."
Kramnik was officially champion in 2006, until the 2007 event. After that he's placed 2nd in two World Championships. No rules or regulations in place give him any privileges in later cycles for those 3 accomplishments. So why does he push for getting any?
Anyone can make up reasons why someone should be "privileged". To me it makes as much (or more) sense from a chess point of view (not economical) to have the "top rated junior" in the candidate final, as some "organizer nominee rated above 2700". When you're also in the world top 5 like Carlsen is, one could easily fabricate reasons why he should have as many privileges as the loser of Topalov/Kamsky, especially if that turns out to be Kamsky. But this is a silly game!
"I still don't think it'll really accomplish anything if Kramnik, for instance, rejects privileges while Topalov & Kamsky take advantage of them."
I think that's a short-sighted view. Morally I think accepting this kind of privileges is rather comparable to tax-evation: By avoiding normal qualification, you implicitly put a higher load on other players ("other tax-payers"). I'm concerned when you and many others don't think the top players need to behave in a principled and dignified manner.
There are only maximum 15-20 players (probably fewer) that are likely to be given "privileges" of some kind by FIDE in relation to the World Championship. How do you increase the pressure on those accepting such privileges? By making the group of "receivers" as small as possible. Kramnik taking a principled stand against this "tradition" WOULD mean a whole lot. It doesn't look like he's even interested in doing that, even in theory.
I wrote down a few more things about how I see Kramnik's (and Topalov's) recent statements here http://www.chessgames.com/perl/kibitzing?kid=P52948&reply=34327 - on chessgames.com. For instance about what I consider the "real" purpose of their media communication now.
@gg
It is at least a sample of what they think they institution should be.
Go to the FIFA site , you wont find any pictures of their staff in the front page.
IMHO that reflects the dictatorship spirit that reigns in FIDE .
Anyway that was just a comment , take it easy.
---
"He does state clearly that he's happy to have no privileges at all, as long as everyone's in the same position. "
In my opinion, that's highly hypothetical and about impossible to have confirmed. I'm not sure I'm ready to take his word on this. Obviously you are.
---
Yes, I think he's a man of his word (the suggestion he isn't has mainly been from remarkably bitter Bulgarians). I'd love to see him tested by FIDE abandoning the idea of giving Kamsky & Topalov a free pass - if Kramnik didn't play the World Cup then I'd be the first to criticise him.
---
Kramnik was officially champion in 2006, until the 2007 event. After that he's placed 2nd in two World Championships. No rules or regulations in place give him any privileges in later cycles for those 3 accomplishments. So why does he push for getting any?
---
He played a world title match a few months ago (a match which overlapped with the Grand Prix, arguably putting Kramnik at a disadvantage). Historically the loser has often had special rights. Fine, it might be best if no-one has any special treatment (it's not self-evident), but why should he just stand by and watch if the loser of Kamsky/Topalov (not even a title match) is treated differently.
---
By avoiding normal qualification, you implicitly put a higher load on other players ("other tax-payers"). I'm concerned when you and many others don't think the top players need to behave in a principled and dignified manner.
---
Theoretically, perhaps, but in practice it might make getting to a well-paid qualifier easier for other players. Besides, if Kramnik's as bad at chess as half his critics claim he won't stand in anyone's way. For what it's worth, I've always found him both principled and dignified.
---
How do you increase the pressure on those accepting such privileges? By making the group of "receivers" as small as possible. Kramnik taking a principled stand against this "tradition" WOULD mean a whole lot.
---
I don't think it would cause even a ripple. It certainly wouldn't gain Kramnik any plaudits on forums like this one. He was against a rematch - the ultimate privilege, and specifically ruled out in the contract - being given to the loser of the London match, but what good did that do him? He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Anyway, I'm glad to see he still seems to have the will to fight. I was half expecting him just to excuse himself from the current cycle and enjoy having the weight of the chess world off his shoulders.
Lets seed Kramnik to that candidates tournament, he wont win it anyway.
So next time he can come to the public with 3 more babies and a bunch of puppies and ask for another free shot to the title.
I see a potential stygma here , he will be the only WCH that never qualifyed as a challenger to the title.
> Other players (Carlsen, Aronian, Adams, did I forget anyone?) also wrote unsolicited open letters...
You forgot Ivanchuk.
What he said was wrong, but that he spoke his mind was good. Same goes for Kramnik.
"I see a potential stygma here , he will be the only WCH that never qualifyed as a challenger to the title".
Manu, you might want to read some chess history, or at least consult a dictionary. Capablanca, Lasker and Alekhine didn't "qualify" in the modern sense. So I'm sure Kramnik can live with the stigma of being in their company.
Even if Kramnik never lifted another pawn you'd be rather hard pressed to paint his career as a failure.
Manu. You are still full of BS.
Slightly off-topic, but here's my 2 cents on the world championship cycle:
Year 1, 2 events:
a World Cup qualifier with 112 players and the World Championship Match (12 games).
The qualifier will be organized as 28 groups of 4 players playing a double round robin (6 games). Then another double round robin for 28 winners in 7 groups of 4 players to create 7 Candidates.
Year 2, 1 event:
The 7 Candidates from year 1 are joined by the loser of the World Championship Match in year 1. They play quarter-final matches of 4 games, semi-final matches of 4 games and the finalists battle it out through 6 games. The winner becomes the new Challenger to play for the Championship in year 3.
...and repeat!
I think the Champion should have draw odds first time defending the title. If the match actually ends in a draw, the Challenger should have draw odds in the next match - though it should also be required that the Challenger win at least one game. As long as the Champion emerges clear winner of the match, the reward will be draw odds next time.
In the World Cup the first tiebreaker should be head-to-head result, next some traditional “quality of score”- system like Sonneborn-Berger.
To fix the current mess I suggest considering 2009 as year 1. The loser of the World Championship Match Anand vs Kamsky/Topalov qualify for one of the 8 spots in the Candidates Matches 2010. The Grand Prix, being an extremely tough qualification event with 52 games over 4 tournaments should be given 5 spots in the Candidates while the World Cup 2009 should produce the remaining 2. If it's too late to reduce the number of participants in the World Cup from the scheduled 128 it could be a 2-game knock-out in the first round, the 64 winners playing 16 groups of 4 players double round robin, the 16 remaining playing 4 groups of 4 players and the 4 winners 4-game matches to determine the 2 Candidates.
This way I believe most players who are able to fight for the Championship will have a decent shot at it. Kamsky managed - like in the 90's - to participate i two parallel cycles. If losing vs Topalov he's still got the chance through GP. Topalov, if losing this match will get the chance through the World Cup, as will Kramnik, Carlsen, Ivanchuk, etc.
@mishamp:
Of course Kramnik's career is not a failure, is just not as bright or brave as other champions.
None of the champions you mention are known for running away the way Kramnik does.
In spite of his talent Kramnik has always been related to coward excuses and dirty privileges.
And of course , keeping Kasparov away with the most childish excuses the chess world has ever heard.
I like the prophetic words in Kasparov's statement when he declined Dortmud : "this will haunt Kramnik as he searches for future respect. "
Nobody would ever said something like that to Capablanca.
@Rubinstein :
Easy with the anger dude , more frustation is coming your way.
Not bad. Do you envision 7 separate (semi-regional) events in the first year, or just one big event, with 7 essentially independent slices on the stage? Considering costs, would anyone (other than Elista) want to host the latter? After all, the whole effect is simply to reduce 112 players to 7, and, similar to what Makropoulos noted in the conference, this could be a hard sell, especially with the Championship presumably being the premier event that year. I'd guess that 7 separate events, each with their own "champion" might be superior. Also, breaking ties in your quads could get a bit tricky.
The length of the matches also looks a bit short. Only 12 plus 14 in total. Better than some of the lottery style events, but maybe still a bit thin. Assuming the Loser is rated 2775, the new Challenger will be in the Top 10 only 85% of the time (assuming the current FIDE ratings, no collusion at step one, ties are coin-flipped, et cetera). And a Loser at 2775 would re-qualify almost 25% of the time. The Champion's advantage is large, nominally 50%, and in practice somewhat more due to the fact that the Challenger will fairly often be noticeably weaker, though that's more philosophical in nature.
"He played a world title match a few months ago (a match which overlapped with the Grand Prix, arguably putting Kramnik at a disadvantage)."
mishanp, this is way too simplistic, I'd like to say even hardly true, but of course it has been argued by others before.
The Grand Prix has 6 events. If Kramnik would've joined the Grand Prix, he could've played ONE event in 2008, in Baku in april/may. That would leave several months, nearly 5, until the match. Then Kramnik could've played the final 3 events in 2009, based on the original schedule of the Grand Prix.
The argument/idea that World Championship matches (or semi-finals) in any way were a real hindrance for either of Topalov, Kamsky, Kramnik or Anand for participation in the Grand Prix, is imho void. Still it's been repeated again and again, by people defending the choice of Topalov/Kramnik/Anand to stay out of the Grand Prix. I think you need to look elsewhere for the real reasons for their non-participation.
"Besides, if Kramnik's as bad at chess as half his critics claim he won't stand in anyone's way."
mishanp, you're debating with ME now. I never ever claimed Kramnik isn't a great chess player. I'm not a Kramnik basher, I'm a chess fan. If you feel you need to resort to that kind of arguments, I take it that you are running short on REAL ones.
If you are opposing the idea that giving a small number of players significant privileges (for questionable or no good reasons) is implicitly making the burden to go through bigger for the remaining players, then I think it's approaching denial.
"why should he just stand by and watch if the loser of Kamsky/Topalov (not even a title match) is treated differently."
Because this kind of privileges is WRONG. Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. Because the principled stand is to OPPOSE these kinds of "privileges", which in this case will be more like undeserved gifts made possible by breaking the contracts of 20 of Kramnik's colleagues, professional players that were willing to go through 4 tough events over 2 years in order to FIGHT for the right to become a title contender.
Why is it so hard to demand that our heros do the Right Thing (TM)?
Neither the champ Fischer didn't qualify! There had been payoff from the US Chess with the Benko spot. Es le importa?
Nevermore, I would love to see more games, but it doesn't seem like players (or even chess fans) want the marathons of twenty-something games.
As for the qualification I was thinking of one big event like the current World Cup, but your idea of 7 regional tournaments, each with 16 players to battle it out looks a lot more attractive. Of course many systems can be considered, single-round robin or different version of cup play. Maybe even let each organizer choose their preferred system (though I see troubles with different qualification systems for the Candidates). The most important is to get rid of the 2-game lottery matches.
Frogbert - sorry, the "half his critics" comment certainly wasn't aimed at you.
Re: Kramnik and the Grand Prix - I think it's unrealistic to expect a player to commit to two years of events (hastily arranged and with no tradition) even before he knows if he'll have to qualify, making them relevant. After all he had an around 50% chance of winning the title. And with the length of preparation for matches now a tournament 4-5 months before is firmly within the period of hiding opening novelties.
You can argue, of course, whether anything needs to be done to allow the loser into the next cycle, but there's nothing inherently evil about such "privileges". They have a long and understandable history. The real villain here is that FIDE gave us another poorly constructed cycle that was almost bound to collapse.
Manu,
"Of course Kramnik's career is not a failure, is just not as bright or brave as other champions.
None of the champions you mention are known for running away the way Kramnik does.
In spite of his talent Kramnik has always been related to coward excuses and dirty privileges."
Again, you really need to actually read a little about Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine (or, for slightly different reasons, Botvinnik & Kasparov - who you quote showing bitterness at not receiving the "dirty privileges" you attack Kramnik with).
You might be surprised, for instance, at the parallels between Capablanca and Kramnik and the way their styles developed.
Of course it's pointless to respond to your provocations, but just for the record the only real break Kramnik was given was a match with Kasparov. Unless you consider Kramnik responsible for the mess chess was in at the time no sane person can hold that against him. It's also hardly his fault that he was the rising star and most convincing challenger to Kasparov at the time.
Defending his title twice in 6 years, or three times in 8 years (as you prefer) hardly comes off badly against the historical record for chess champions. Though obviously he chose the easy option of playing guys like Topalov :) You might not like that he tried to stick to the principle of the World Championship being won and lost in a match, but please don't be shocked that others respect him for it.
Very interesting ec=xchange between mishanp and frogbert. As I read each one my opinion changes in favour of the current writer :-)
"Very interesting ec=xchange between mishanp and frogbert. As I read each one my opinion changes in favour of the current writer :-)"
In my words: Both have their fair points !?
Yeah Thomas exactly - forgive me being longwinded :-). Much better than reading completely biased contributions from people with an axe to grind......
Just a short comment to this, which was a response to my suggestion of playing in Baku in april/may, more than 5 months before the WC match:
"And with the length of preparation for matches now a tournament 4-5 months before is firmly within the period of hiding opening novelties."
I find that argument quite strange and irrelevant, when we know Kramnik's tournament record for 2008. He played
Dortmund, in June/July.
Tal Memorial, in late August.
If he could play those events, he certainly could've played in Baku in April/May. Even the 2nd Grand Prix event in Sochi took place _before_ Tal Memorial.
I still maintain that WC Matches were no real hindrance for ANYONE to participate in the Grand Prix. I think you're much closer to the truth when you refer to the chance (or how Kramnik perceived his chances) to actually be champion before the end of the 2008-2009 Grand Prix. Additionally, I assume that he basically found the Grand Prix events less tempting than playing events like Dortmund, Tal Memorial and so on.
However, gambling that you are champion or finding other events more interesting (or profitable) is no good excuse for staying out of the qualification cycle in my opinion: If Kramnik chooses money and pleasant events over fighting for the World Championship title in 2010/11, then it's his choice. He was given the same options as any other top player. If it turns out that the choice he made only left the World Cup as a possible route to be a contender in 2011, then it's Kramnik's problem. By asking for new, so-far unregulated privileges, he makes it also a problem for other, unprivileged players.
Since nobody (of us mere mortals) really knows why and how and where the ideas for ditching the original system (and turning the semi-final into a candidate event with 4-6 new places) originated, I won't rule out that Kramnik's "case" _after_ the lost match against Anand actually played some role when the "candidate event proposal" came into being.
"If he could play those events, he certainly could've played in Baku in April/May. Even the 2nd Grand Prix event in Sochi took place _before_ Tal Memorial."
He could have played in one of them, but unlike at the Tal Memorial or Dortmund he'd be forced to reveal his match preparation. Otherwise he'd be appearing simply to fulfil FIDE's contractual requirements [sic(k)!], and a poor result would seriously lower his chances of winning the whole series. Perhaps he could have played the December tournament and all 3 next year to meet the 4 tournament requirement, but that would have meant not taking a break after the match.
[In general the Grand Prix's a typically half-baked FIDE idea - two bad results and your chances of winning it are close to zero, but you're still committed to another two tournaments. It might work if they were Grand Slam tournaments as in tennis where everyone participates if they can (and would participate even without the chance of the no. 1 spot), but otherwise it's not ideal. I wouldn't bet against some of the participants being grateful that FIDE's actions have legitimised withdrawing].
"If Kramnik chooses money and pleasant events over fighting for the World Championship title in 2010/11, then it's his choice. He was given the same options as any other top player."
Again I don't think he had the same options as other top players not involved in title matches, but I agree he made his choice (along with Topalov and Anand).
"I won't rule out that Kramnik's "case" _after_ the lost match against Anand actually played some role when the "candidate event proposal" came into being."
It's possible, though the matter was obviously raised in negotiations for the Topalov-Kamsky match, and as Kamsky in any case did take part in the Grand Prix it's fairly clear who would be putting the case for automatic qualification most forcefully.
I still believe that if Topalov and Kamsky accepted the situation Kramnik would have as well (and taken his (slim) chances in the World Cup), but obviously there's no way of knowing.
Sorry for copying and pasting but I thought that the opinion that I have expressed on the chessvibes could also be posted here:
Hello everybody,
I believe there is still one thing Mr. Hans Arild Runde and Mr. Henrik Carlsen miss - the way the cycle 2008-2011 was presented lacked fairness as well. It meant the match between winner of the World Cup and the winner of Grand Prix, fine. Then the winner of their match against the World Champion, fine. But what about the loser of the World Championship match?
As it was more or less clear that the World Championship match would not happen before 2010, the only chance for both contenders to be in the next cycle would be to play in the World Cup 2009. But then what if none of two players even qualifies for the final? What sense it makes their WC match then and the subsequent match of the new World Champ with the winner of the cycle?
It’s really very difficult to find a perfectly fair and transparent system, therefore an attempt to create the Candidate’s torunament wasn’t so bad itself in my opinion. As long as there are no further intrigues such as Topalov/Kamsky’s privileges and obscure potential privileges to Kramnik.
For Kramnik’s privileges there is one more thing to add. At the moment it seems that the only potential offer for the Candidate’s tournament is Bonn and they would want to include Kramnik. So sad is the reality of chess that unfortunately the most players would still prefer to play the tournament rather than play nothing at all. And here it comes - the Bonn tournament was possibly already in Ilyumzhinov’s mind when he offered the privileges to Topalov and Kamsky. A typical one move calculation honestly believing that the move would make everybody happy. But he forgot that the organizers’ nominee (which normally shouldn’t exist but that’s a different matter) CAN NOT be confused with the sporting part of the system that shoul be fair otherwise. In tennis local nominees exist too, of course.
Still, I’d like to remind the chess world that when Carlsen joined the Grand Prix, Henrik didn’t seem unhappy about the local nominees (which, I for example strongly opposed to, in my opinion they could play one but not four events) neither the President nominees nor the general stupidity of the system. Therefore, I still can’t fully understand the decision to withdraw from Elista.
As for me, I didn’t play in Grand Prix from the beginning but I should admit I also had personal reasons for that, the issue of local nominees was only one of them.
Sincerely
Alexei Shirov, Riga 09.01.2009
I do agree there shouldn't really be local nominees (wildcards), though there is a tradition of them (e.g. Najditsch at Dortmund), and you can understand the sponsors etc. grabbing any chance to improve the appeal of a tournament for local spectators (but ideally not THE tournament!).
One thing I'm a bit perplexed by, though - having no behind-the-scenes knowledge whatsoever. Ilyumzhinov actually said a nomination of the host "country", as far as I can tell. Wouldn't that mean that those in Bonn could only nominate a German? Obviously assuming Ilyumzhinov's a man of his word...
Actually they also made 2700 rule and at that time Najditch was doing well in Hans Arild's rating. So, not only you are perplexed. :) But then Arkadi went down to 2693, I don't know which lists they want to take into account though.
¨Of course it's pointless to respond to your provocations¨,
Mmm , ok so why are you doing it ? Go talk to someone with the same perception and opinions you have.
Im really not trying to provoke you at all , in fact the way you distort the information leaves no room for a reasonable chat.
If you realy believe that: ¨ the only real break Kramnik was given was a match with Kasparov.¨ you are delusive.
And if you also think that :
¨It's also hardly his fault that he was the rising star and most convincing challenger to Kasparov at the time.¨
Kramnik was offered that match AFTER Anand didnt want it , so the rising star part (in your opinion enough to avoid qualification)is a distorted version of the facts.
Maybe you are right and my knowledge in hystory is not that great, but make a list of all the WCHs and do a poll to find the most coward of them all.
What would be the result of that poll?
seeu@
"Kramnik was offered that match AFTER Anand didnt want it , so the rising star part (in your opinion enough to avoid qualification)is a distorted version of the facts."
Not really. By the time of the match, Kramnik had surpassed Anand's rating. He had (and has) very equal score against Kasparov compared to Vishy's disastrous head to head score.
Not true : http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/owenbrain.html
in particular this part:
¨Then came Kramnik who was offered the challenge after #2 Anand turned down the opportunity for the relatively safe haven of FIDE.¨
Thats what i meant by AFTER.
First, thanks to Alexei Shirov for speaking out in public ! And I think it is an honor to Mig (and a bit to all of us discussing here?) that he chose this site .... same applies of course to Peter Doggers and the Chessvibed community.
That being said, I slightly disagree with his opinion about local nominees. As mishanp correctly pointed out, sponsors want local players to participate, and - like it or not - professional chess (at any level including the world top) needs sponsors. So [now referring only to mishanp] there is nothing at all wrong with local players in Dortmund, Wijk aan Zee, Linares, ... . And many chess fans tend to complain about always seeing the same few players in supertournaments !? Sometimes local heroes can even be a positive surprise, Naiditsch even winning Dortmund once and, at the Grand Prix, Gashimov and +- Jakovenko performing well above Elo expectations.
Back to the Grand Prix, IMHO it also makes some sense that local nominees play four tournaments as everyone else rather than only the one in their home country. Already, one deficiency of the Grand Prix system is that any given player does not play exactly the same opponents. Very hard to say (beforehand), of course, in whose favor this turns out in the end - I would say it is a random factor, very remotely comparable to uncertainties of KO lotteries ... . But things would become worse if a clearly weaker player as Al-Modiakhi or Pelletier played only one Grand Prix tournament.
That being said, there are limits .... I already implied above that two of the local nominees are completely out of place in the Grand Prix series. However, should FIDE have declined bids from Doha and Montreux without having any alternatives??
And, for once, FIDE cannot be blamed for not anticipating the World financial crisis and its consequences for professional chess.
Slight joke to finish: At the San Luis and Mexico WCh tournaments, of course it would have been completely ridiculous to include a local player ... I guess for once even Manu agrees with me !?
Second post, I will try to keep it short(er) ... : Of course it is very understandable that Shirov is particularly bitter about privileges for Kramnik [read Fire on Board Part II if you really don't know what I am referring to - ,:) or rather ,:( ].
To my knowledge (but I have missed something) Shirov is the first one mentioning a potential offer from Bonn - so far commmon speculation rather seemed to be "gosh, it is going to be Elista for the nth time"!?
Disclaimer: IMHO, this is not contradictory to some of my other (pro-Kramnik) posts. They were referring to him as a player, not to "off-the board politics" - and largely motivated by my desire to balance recurrent anti-Kramnik posts by some other bloggers.
"Im really not trying to provoke you at all".
Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
"If you realy believe that: ¨ the only real break Kramnik was given was a match with Kasparov.¨ you are delusive".
Well, I just reread Belentino's enormous list of the supposed unfair privileges Kramnik was given and there's nothing there. He became world champion with the Kasparov match and after that just had the normal rights holders of that title have always had. He's the first classical champion who's had to fight tooth-and-nail for those as FIDE desperately tried to destroy the match system.
"Kramnik was offered that match AFTER Anand didnt want it , so the rising star part (in your opinion enough to avoid qualification)is a distorted version of the facts."
I thought I'd mentioned Anand had first refusal, but it makes no difference to the point. "Rising star" wouldn't apply to Anand, by the way, as he's five years older and had already lost a match to Kasparov. In any case, Kramnik was chosen by Kasparov because he was undoubtedly a worthy challenger. Sure, it'd be better if Kramnik also won the qualifier he played when he was 20, but how on earth can you hold him guilty for the breakdown of the system!?
"Maybe you are right and my knowledge in hystory is not that great, but make a list of all the WCHs and do a poll to find the most coward of them all.
What would be the result of that poll?"
CowardLY's the word you want, but actually you don't find many cowards among world champions & I'm not sure what's cowardly about playing matches against Kasparov, Topalov, Leko and Anand.
Anyway, a "most-cowardly" poll (that high fidelity means of determining complex historical questions!) might well end up with Fischer, notwithstanding the block Bulgarian vote.
Objectively, if you're talking about playing style (though it's got almost nothing to do with cowardliness), I suppose Petrosian would be the most conservative. If you mean in terms of dodging matches then (apart from Fischer) you should really look at the struggles challengers had to play the holder pre-Botvinnik.
@Thomas
lol :)
My first aproach to chess was during the Najdorf memorial tournament (the same month of the 11Sept attacks).
I was a cameraman covering the tournament , and Felgaer was playing in it .
Then i started going to some chessclubs and saw him play a few times.
He is such a nice guy that it would have been a shame to see him getting beated by everybody at San Luis.:)
Anyway, i still consider local nominees not appropiate for deciding a WCH challenger.
In any other tournament is a wonderfull thing , but deciding a challenger is a more serious issue.
Chess has a fair system to meassure strenght , the ELO.
Lets use it to decide whos in better form to play the champ, we need something like in tennis , a solid and fair structure .
I can't be bothered with most of this (manu is particularly tiresome; what is he, some 12-year-old Bulgarian?).
But Kramnik's basic point is unarguably right; if Topalov is seeded into the next cycle as a losing WC, then Kramnik ought to be also. You can argue about whether in principle a deposed WC should be seeded in the next cycle (obviously yes, in my view) but that isn't Kramnik's point; his point is whether Topalov should be when he isn't being, and obviously the answer is no. Both or neither, and Kramnik has said he's happy with neither. The vitriol he's getting for that is ridiculous, and presumably based either on nationalism (is Frogbert Norwegian or something?) or hangovers from 2000, as usual.
@Manu: We disagree on many things, but remain on speaking terms ,:) - at least I try to avoid becoming personal as rdh just did ... .
You believe a lot in ratings, I do not as much - simply because ratings are too volatile over time: at this very moment there is a clear #1, but considering the recent past (say, last 2 years), this is the exception rather than the rule.
So I would prefer some sort of qualifying system - ideally the very ancient one with zonal tournaments (preceded by national championships?), interzonal tournaments and candidate matches. But this takes too long and it is too hard to find sponsors these days .... .
About local nominees: Just to give one example, I have hardly any problem with Gashimov seeded into the Grand Prix: OK, "he got some help" but still has a lot to prove, is well underway and if he makes it all the way (odds are still relatively low) he would be a worthy challenger IMHO. Of course, the later the stage, the more questionable things become; then it comes down to whether past achievements can compensate for lack of formal qualification. Kramnik has some past achievements (I hope you do not wholly disagree), so does Topalov of course.
At the very least: If someone ends up getting a wildcard for the candidates tournament, I would rather see Kramnik than - giving some random names - Naiditsch, Vallejo Pons, Nakamura or anyone else who happens to be rated at least 2701 when the decision is made ... .
And let's face it: Discussions on this forum, or even actions taken by top players, will not change the course of events.
@rdh:
¨ Kramnik's basic point is unarguably right ¨
No is not , even a 12 year old boy(Bulgarian or not) can understand that.
rdh, if Manu was a 12-year old Bulgarian, his English would be truly remarkable ... (even if it is not 100% error-free, neither is mine).
As people regularly following this blog know, Manu is from Argentina and became a Topalov fan during the San Luis WCh. Frogbert (also known as Hans Arild Runde) is indeed Norwegian, may not be wholly free from nationalism (who is?) but also tries to provide balance comments.
What I want to say: rdh, while we tend to be on the same side in this kind of discussions, let's not get personal .... this obviously also applies "to the other side".
rdh: But Kramnik's basic point is unarguably right; if Topalov is seeded into the next cycle as a losing WC, then Kramnik ought to be also.
===============================
Kramnik was... I can't believe you're so challenged by the facts,
or like acting that way? Kramnik received the special insurance
policy to be guaranteed a rematch in 2008, had he lose 2007. He
did lose, he got seeded straight to the Final in 2008, for
another try. And he lost again. He lost both. Now, by rdh's
logic, after every loss one should be seeded in perpetuum to the
top of the next event. And drop please the national aspect of
your comments, I don't really care where you're from, when you're
a pompous fool.
Kramnik has no more business to try to set things straight than
Jeffrey Dahmer to head a "Victim's Rights organization". Kramnik
is the most perpetual offended when it comes to twisting the
rules, failing to follow through on contracts, and receiving
special privileges at every turn. That's why I said that his
complaints are beyond disingenuous, they're downright pitiful.
Carlsen is a completely different story -- he has the right to
request transparency and a solid process that stays 'as is'
throughout the course of the cycle. I'm not cynical enough to
question his motives for dropping the Grand Prix, but
fundamentally his points are solid and sound.
And I am not saying that the latest changes vis-a-vis
Topalov/Kamsky are right for the Chess as a whole. They clearly
are not, as now this seems more like a Middle Eastern bazaar than
a solid process. But I do not think that Topalov has been driving
these. I think there are other forces are at play here and this
should very, very obvious.
D.
rdh, it may please you to note that those who disagree with you are saying things like:
"Kramnik has no more business to try to set things straight than Jeffrey Dahmer to head a "Victim's Rights organization".
When your opponent is conflating the motives of a world chess champion to those of a serial murdering cannibal, you've got to feel pretty good about your own opinions.
Clubfoot: When your opponent is conflating the motives of a world chess champion to those of a serial murdering cannibal, you've got to feel pretty good about your own opinions
and calling the factual arguments of someone ridiculous vitriol caused by his norwegian nationalism is almost as impressive as trying to come up with a good argument.
And another thing, rdh...
"and calling the factual arguments of someone ridiculous vitriol caused by his norwegian nationalism is almost as impressive as trying to come up with a good argument."
...when others chime in with dissembling vomit of this sort, you've got to feel REALLY safe and warm with your opinions.
I think the problem with local wildcards is not their existence, but their impact. In a field of 8 it matters. In a field of 128 or the like, not much so.
I could add the same could be said about qualifying by rating: if you want a "top 8 by rating" tournament (as with Nunn), one cannot fail to account for under-handed techniques being used, not to mention the debate (yet again) about the quality of the FIDE numbers. Not so with (say) a 2700 limit for an over-sized event.
I'm indeed a fan of Carlsen, but not any less a "fan" of his manager Henrik Carlsen, which I also consider a good friend of mine.
However, I can't agree that the arguments I put forward here are heavily concerned with Carlsen's "faith" in the 2008-2011 cycle. With fair and transparent rules and processes in place, I'm sure he'll get his chances to fight for the chess crown at some point.
I think it would be a big win for chess if FIDE would abolish the ad hoc "candidates" proposal and go through with the 2008-2011 without introducing HORRIBLY unfair privileges and breaking contracts in the middle of the cycle.
[Why are people concerned with "fairness" regarding Kramnik vs Topalov/Kamsky when none of them had any "rights" in the 2008-2011 cycle to begin with? Isn't the "Grand Prix Winner" vs any of Kramnik/Topalov/Kamsky unfairness (assuming Kramnik gets a spot, this way or another) a magnitude or more greater? The eventual Grand Prix winner had a clear right (as potential winner) in his contract from the outset, he invested a lot of time to get where he is at the end of the Grand Prix (or maybe even simply to QUALIFY to the Grand Prix), partly tieing down his tournament schedule 2 years ahead of time, maybe implicitly saying no to other, more profitable or otherwise tempting events. Why isn't Kramnik concerned with BASIC FAIRNESS for this top GM colleague of him?]
I guess that some are so little concerned with and used to principled thinking that they will doubt my sincerity when I state the following: I would prefer FIDE to go through with the 2008-2011 cycle as originally planned, without Carlsen present in the Grand Prix (as he has officially withdrawn), over having the proposed candidate event EVEN IF Carlsen would somehow get to participate in those candidates, presumably as the rating nominee.
Or to put it shorter; If I have to choose, I prefer consistency and predictability and FIDE doing the Right Thing about this cycle, to having Carlsen in the "candidate event".
Going through with the cycle according to regulations and contracts in place, would be an implicit stand against more favouritism and ad hoc privileges. It would make it possible to rectify the perceived short-comings of the current Grand Prix (after its completion) in cooperation with the top players and others concerned, and plan for the next cycles with some faith and belief in FIDE as TRYING to be a serious, professional and non-corrupt organization.
I agree with Kramnik that we need Basic Fairness, but this should apply to everyone, not a selected few. Fairness for a selected few, is a contradiction in terms - it's simply meaningless.
Lots of lament on fairness was raised by Mig's original write-up, but
if you look at it fundamentally, Chess is in a losing endgame here.
The most fundamental problem is that Chess has little money as it is
not seen an attractive option for viewer attendance or attention. It
is not the kind of sport where the major figures present an attractive
marketing opportunity -- I love Ivanchuk for his Chess spirit, but can
you just picture him advertising anything??? So, as a result of that
the sport relies on mecenats who have sufficient funds and personal
interest to make things happen. The Kalmykian Prince is one of
them. As long as money come principally from the East, you can expect
the dealings to reflect these traditions too.
On the opposite end are the Carlsen's -- now that the younger one may
become the face of Chess for the next couple of decades they do have
some stature to call for changes. But still, it feels like a black
comedy to look at their proud stance regarding the Grand Prix when
nobody else follows them and moreover their motivation is being
examined outside of their stated aim of simply fighting for
fairness. Even more fundamentally than that -- it is not their
business to move about like a pair of Viking clowns, trying to break
the Byzanthene system of Kirsan. It is for the Norwegian Chess
Federation to take an official stance and raise some hell, but again,
if such thing exists it is probably hidden in some dark corner of Oslo
and nobody, even the taxi drivers haven't heard about it... frogbert
is better known than that entity...
The job of pushing things should rest with others -- the Americans --
but then look at the state of the UCSF and you see that even Kirsan
looks like a Prince Charming compared to those clowns in
there. Kamsky, the American, ended playing in Sofia. Tells you
something about their influence ability and financial power. Of
course, it's not like Kamsky or Nakamura sound like a pair of
Brookline boys, or that anyone in Topeka cares much about what their
opening lines are…
The Gemans, lacking a major player of their own, have no Federation
worth even mentioning -- they've adopted Krautnik as their own Chess
representative now. Their greatest voice is Friedel from Chessbase and
he's not particularly powerful to do anything other than stir some
noise form time to time. So, Kirsan "The Best" is safe from that
end…
The last message that came from the English Chess Federation was so
bad that Danailov could have written it better - these guys sound like
some retired grannies who do that job after church on Sunday. Their
infleunce is on Chess events is comparable. Even rdh could probably
do better.
So, the bottom line -- nothing will change until the Agents of Change
appear. Such are not seen on the horizon… Until then lay low and
enjoy it (you know what...) At least we can talk about it.
D.
@Dimi
I totally see Ivanchuk in comertials ! in fact he would be one of the most colorfull characters in a serious broadcast on chess.
Don t make mistakes about this : chess can be and should be a serious and fully sponsored game.
Just erase FIDE´s power of chaos and corruption.
How do you do that?
For starters we can use just ELO for the candidates problem , and all of a sudden they will be unable to influence the election of the World Champ(or at least in a seriously diminished way).
Ok i got carried away but going back to Chucky...
Im a film editor and work essentially in comertials and i TOTALLY see Chucky advertising.
BTW AMD is doing very interesting stuff with Anand.
Manu: I totally see Ivanchuk in comertials ! in fact he would be one of the most colorfull characters in a serious broadcast on chess.
Manu, I hope you're right. But when I see it, I'll believe it. Cute commercials for a small audience (=intelligent audience), yes, perhaps they can squeeze something. But something that sells shoes, or shirts, or other cool stuff?!? I really doubt it. And that's where the money are, in the overpriced rags and stuff.
D.
P.S. Kasparov was the last big dog who could be used to promote an entire industry.
The Maradona of Chess.
I agree Kramnik should get the same treatment as Topalov. Topalov won San Luis in 2005, and lost a match in Elista 2006. His reward was exclusion from Mexico City 2007, even though Anand, Svidler, and Morozevich got in for finishing 2nd-4th in San Luis. Upon losing a match in Bonn 2008, Kramnik should thereby be excluded from the next event. With precedent, those who were 1st-4th in Mexico City 2007 and didn't lose a match should be in the Candidates. So Gelfand and Leko are in, and Anand if he wants.
"I would love to see more games, but it doesn't seem like players (or even chess fans) want the marathons of twenty-something games."
For us fans, the fault would be Kasparov's. BrainGames could only get 16 games because Garik skunked Short and Anand previously in short order, with zero interest at the end. The length then becomes less and less due to organizers, and no great rivalry. The FIDE miniature matches aren't quite that comparisoned wiht the classical title on the subject of length.
"The Germans, lacking a major player of their own, have no Federation worth even mentioning -- they've adopted Krautnik as their own Chess
representative now. Their greatest voice is Friedel from Chessbase ..."
OK, Kramnik-bashing is now becoming German-bashing .... so just a few relevant(?) facts:
1) German chess may be lacking top quality (at present, indeed ever since Huebner semi-retired and dropped out of the world top), but it does have remarkable quantity (number of rated players, number of titled players).
2) "Somehow" [arguably related to item 1) above] they manage to find sponsors for the very strong Bundesliga competition. This is maybe a mixed blessing: the more foreign mercenaries being hired by the clubs, the less boards still available for (young) German players.
3) Chessbase is a German site/company with international ambitions, Frederic Friedel happens to be German - but neither actually representing the entire country.
"I love Ivanchuk for his Chess spirit, but can
you just picture him advertising anything???"
Did you, or anyone else, see the video on
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/vassily-ivanchuk-wins-m-tel-masters-2008/ ?
I do not have Manu's professional insight, but I think advertising might want a similar "show" ... . The problem may be (as some people had posted, don't remember when and where exactly): Ivanchuk is actually quite shy, feels uncomfortable in front of a camera, and that's why he is acting in such a way..
>OK, Kramnik-bashing is now becoming German-bashing ....
Oh, c'mon, not sure how you squeezed the "German bashing" lament, as
nowhere in there is an attempt to belittle the merits of any Nation,
so please cut the self-pity emotions, or don't use me as a vector for
them. I discussed the situation with the respective Chess Federations
and if you disagree with something, you can be more specific.
>2) "Somehow" [arguably related to item 1) above] they manage to find
>sponsors for the very strong Bundesliga competition.
Yes, this is an example of "can do" attitude. In that context the
Grand Slam set events are remarkable too. Let's see how they do this
year, considering the Economy and all, but I'm sure they'll
manage. So, the outlook is not as bleak my previous message suggested,
but I was affected by the overall tone of this thread.
There are ways apparently to keep top-Chess rolling and avoid the
nonsense. I wrote 2 years ago that FIDE risks to devalue it's most
important asset, the WC title via mismanagement. Of course, theirs is
not that easy either, as they get pulled form all directions...
D.
@Dimi: I considered your comments about Germany particularly harsh, I may be wrong (or it was unintentional from your side), I may be particularly sensitive ... . Anyway, I still think most of which you wrote in that paragraph is simply wrong, the only correct statement being "lacking a major player of their own" - if subtop [Naiditsch] is not 'major', I would agree in the context of this thread.
So if they have no players' interests to defend, why should (of all nations) the German federation speak up?
About "Germans adopting Krautnik", quite unclear what this is based on .... . On the Chessbase interview, because Chessbase happens to be based in Germany? On speculations about a candidates tournament in Bonn, and Kramnik being the (fake) local nominee? I repeat: to my knowledge Shirov was the first one to suggest such a thing, and at the moment it's just a speculation (though not completely out of the blue).
BTW, I guess grandmasters (at least the non-Russian ones) and journalists covering the event on site would prefer Bonn over Elista [of course there are other more attractive venues]. And at least, Germany has demonstrated (Bonn WCh and Dresden Olympiad) that it can organize such major events, including sponsoring and media coverage.
And as I mentioned Shirov, he has spoken up again on Chessvibes - in an email to Peter Doggers "which we [Chessvibes] were allowed to publish as well".
Some remarkable quotes:
"I feel extremely strange defending Kramnik ..."
"now all the dirt goes on Kramnik. That means that only number 1 and 2 (and for the public it is in a way Anand and Carlsen nowadays) are always right and the rest of the people are always wrong."
"Kramnik is only partly wrong suggesting that he should be in the Candidates Tournament if Topalov/Kamsky are there as well. If you look at his message from a different side, that he would be ready to play in the World Cup unless the loser of Topalov-Kamsky is directly seeded, then everything makes sense"
This does not answer the question whether Kramnik is right, wrong or somewhere in between (which remains a matter of taste). But - see first quote - Shirov clearly cannot be accused of being a priori biased in favor of Kramnik. So, IMHO, kudos to Shirov for leaving personal bitterness behind and coming up with a rather balance statement. The only top grandmaster who could have surprised me more (in a positive way) with such a statement is .... Topalov.
I too am a big fan of Henrik Carlsen's, but that isn't incompatible with thinking Kramnik is right about this.
It's true that if you count the Anand match as being seeded into the next cycle then Kramnik's position loses its logic, but he, like I, has never considered any tournament championship anything more than a qualifier. The way it's always been and would remain but for the greed of Gazza and Short and FIDE's stupidity, the champion's the champion until he loses a match, then he gets seeded in the next cycle. Tournaments merely determine the challenger.
rdh: he, like I, has never considered any tournament championship anything more than a qualifier
If you lose the tournament in Mexico, until the time you play the rematch, will you call yourself world champion?
kramnik: No, no, of course not.
If Anand wins it, you would you would accept that he is world champion?
kramnik: Of course
rdh: but he, like I, has never considered any tournament championship anything more than a qualifier.
These are your feelings on the matter. This is not reality. Let's
speak of reality and not of fantasy, otherwise it's like talking to
the loonies. Kramnik signed contract prior to Elista stating clearly
what happens in Mexico 2007. It's history now.
D.
>About "Germans adopting Krautnik", quite unclear what this is based on ....
>[Re: Bonn/Kramnik] ...at the moment it's just a speculation
(though not completely out of the blue).
Well, in the same paragraph you ask the question and then answer
yourself. I was simply surprised about the Germans adopting Kramnik,
although that this is not intended as bashing or anything.
>And at least, Germany has demonstrated (Bonn WCh and Dresden
>Olympiad) that it can organize such major events
No doubt about that. The degree of sponsorship in Germany is great. I
only wish that next time Dresden starts the event with a good online
connection from day one.
>"Kramnik is only partly wrong suggesting that he should be in the
>Candidates Tournament
You know, these sophisms are tiresome. We already know that Kramnik
will be seeded in the Tournament. All these discussions were just to
prepare the public. Iluymjinov even explicitly mentioned Kramnik when
he spoke of the host country's choice. The rest is dust in the eyes --
Kramnik's in. He's an old operator in Kirsan's World, but just the
desire to appear clean is what I find nauseatingly hypocritical.
>only top grandmaster who could have surprised me more (in a positive
>way) with such a statement is .... Topalov.
Thomas, please cut the soapy drama -- Topalov has much more important
things to worry about at the moment than to defend Kramnik, or make
public appearances of any kind, open letters, general discussions,
etc. He was in the intense spotlight for a long time and that affected
his form negatively.
Have fun and enjoy Kramnik in Bonn.
D.
>I was simply surprised about the Germans adopting Kramnik ...
Repeating myself: at this stage, anything [Re: Bonn/Kramnik] is merely unconfirmed speculation. Kramnik may have somewhat more fans or friends in Germany compared to some other countries - he played in Dortmund very frequently, and he used to have a German manager - but IMHO this is only marginally relevant.
>>" [quoting Shirov] Kramnik is only partly wrong suggesting that he should be in the
>>Candidates Tournament
>You know, these sophisms are tiresome.
Regardless of the fact whether Kramnik gets seeded or not, it is at least interesting to note that this is or would be, to some extent, endorsed by a strong grandmaster who is not quite a friend of Kramnik - if I remember correctly, at some stage Kramnik and Shirov were "not shaking hands with each other by mutual consent".
>Thomas, please cut the soapy drama -- Topalov has much more important things to worry about at the moment ... . He was in the intense spotlight for a long time and that affected his form negatively.
As far as I remember, Topalov is always - correctly - insisting that top grandmaster have to fulfill their obligations towards media, sponsors and public ... so ´your complaints on his behalf´ are a bit odd. Indeed, he is presently busy preparing for Kamsky, but then Danailov could speak on his behalf - and of course he does not HAVE TO defend Kramnik ... .
I get the impression that I have been totally misunderstood, probably my English is responsible for that. Of course, having both Kramnik and the loser of Topalov/Kamsky in the Candidates would be outrageus, what I was trying to say is that Kramnik's opinion partly coincides with mine concerning Topalov/Kamsky's privileges in the next cycle. Only partly, of course, I am not going to change my opinion about Danailov-Sutovsky-FIDE closed door meeting in Dresden in November.
On the other hand my messages were influenced by the fact that in my opinion Henrik Carlsen and Hans Arild Runde stressed too much on something that in the current situation had less importance - the change of the system which is much less a negative change than the most of FIDE changes in last 10 years as this time the change was influenced by the objective reasons which are clear system's faults. At the same time if other players would act more clearly against Topalov/Kamsky's (and thus also Kramnik's) privileges, there would be a chance to change something in that direction. Now I don't see such a chance any longer - too much air has been shaken for nothing.
So, assuming what both Dimi and I have assumed all along - Kramnik is "in" - what does the Candidate event look like, if it happens?
Kramnik (Organizer's 2700+ nominee)
2 of Anand/Kamsky/Topalov (Lucky losers)
2 of Aronian/Radjabov/Gashimov/Wang Yue (Grand Prix, other results possible)
1 of Ivanchuk/Morozevich/Carlsen (Rating qualifier)
2 from WCC
In this half-corrupt construct known as the "Candidate stage", my last concern for transparency and fairness is the rating list to be used for deciding the rating qualifier. So far FIDE has "wisely" kept that information to themself - or not taken a decision yet.
One can _assume_ that the same list mentioned for the 2700+ criteria will be used, but one has to love the assymetry here:
"-- The highest rated player, provided that he is one of the top six based on the FIDE rating list. If not, the qualifying spot goes to the Grand Prix 2008/09.
-- Nomination by the organiser provided that the nominated player has a rating of at least 2700 in the FIDE rating list of January 2010"
This is taken from http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/3578-bidding-procedure-for-the-world-championship-cycle-2009-2011 on FIDE's site.
For the highest rated player criteria, they refer to the "FIDE rating list", with no specifics, while for the organizer nominee, they explicitly mention the January 2010 list. Why this assymetry? It should be announced as soon as possible which FUTURE list they will use for determining the rating qualifier, and it should not be any list sooner than July 2009. January 2010 is perfectly fine and would make sense since the 2700+ criteria is based on that list. But nobody can take this for granted, until it has been said explicitly, with no room for "manouvering" by FIDE.
When the rating "qualifiers" for Mexico 2005 and the Candidate matches in 2006/2007 (planned for 2006, took place in 2007) were CHOSEN, they picked older lists in retrsospect, so that FIDE implicitly decided to have Polgar in and Ivanchuk out, for instance. By choosing the lists differently then, they could easily have made the opposite happen.
Hence, if the March PB meeting ends up giving a go for the candidate charade, the first thing that needs to be written in stone, is which FUTURE FIDE list the rating qualifier will be taken from.
With all due respect , don't you consider (like some people including myself)
that the real reason behind this changes comes from the russian side?
The day before changes were announced Topalov said he was against any changes in the cycle and if you look at the current situation he might not need his privileges after the kamsky match at all.
But Kramnik (IMO) seems to be needing this privileges more than anyone ...
Im not defending Topalov , it just seems to me that this cannot come from the Bulgarian side, because they already have what they want.
Yes, Russian side (the journamlist Yuri Vasiliev to be precise) spread the information about the potential Bonn bid a few days before the metting with Topalov-Kamsky took place.
For me it's less relevant because an unfair bid with a wildcard theoretically can be beaten by the more fair bid and if this doesn't happen, it means that chess is facing dificuloties in general, so the compromises are inevitable. That's why I am surprisingly indifferent to Kramnik's possible wildcard.
But what really disgusts me is that when Topalov and Kamsky (to be precise these were their managers Danailov and Sutovsky) were supposed just to discuss the details of their match with FIDE they came up with the guearanteed seed for both and not just the winner, which would be logical(also justifying the system change), in the next cycle. And everything behind the closed doors. That meeting was the real violation of trancparency and fairness in my opinion.
I totally agree with you , im against all privileges.
But in this case , in this specific situation if i were Kirsan and needed to give privileges to Kramnik , i would give it to Topalov first.
And then just wait for the justified claims and acusations to start.
In the end Bulgarians would be attacked and Kramnick claims would be less offensive to the eye of the public.
In a way Kramnik needs Topalov to get his privileges , and this is not exactly happening the other way around.
I wish everything would get solved in a more transparent way.
"in my opinion Henrik Carlsen and Hans Arild Runde stressed too much on something that in the current situation had less importance - the change of the system which is much less a negative change than the most of FIDE changes in last 10 years"
Dear GM Shirov,
First I must say that I think it's great that you choose to participate in these online discussions, giving the views from someone with first person experience in this area. No matter what knowledge we might have, most of us are doomed to be observers from a distance to most of the FIDE/chess politics
Regarding the current "adaptations" done to the 2008-2011 cycle, I think we need to be able to hold two different thoughts in our heads at the same time:
1) What we think of the plans and regulatins of the 2008-2011 cycle (the system), and whether or not the introduction of some final "candidate event" is good or not.
2) What our principle stand is on changes being done in the middle of an on-going World Championship Cycle, changes that quite clearly diminish the value of participation in the Grand Prix and in my firm opinion is a clear breach of contract with the Grand Prix participants. Additionally, these changes INTRODUCED privileges to a number of new players.
Like I've expressed earlier, I find the distribution of new privileges to be far less important at the moment, than the fact that his change SHOULDN'T have happened at all, at THIS POINT in time. One thing that surely can be said about these privileges, is that there is no general agreement about them being fair, meaningful and so on. Taking yourself as an example, you oppose the privileges given to Topalov/Kamsky (and soon Kramnik) [I think you've been clear on that from the beginning, btw - at least for anyone who read your initial statement on the changes on Chessbase.]
If I understand you correctly, you like the idea of introducing this candidate stage, and you might also think that some players SHOULD have special privileges in that respect, for instance a losing champion. Well, I don't think that is such a bad idea - there are in fact several things that might be changed in the current "system" for deciding the World Champion. But whatever one's take on this, I and the Carlsens consider it unheard of to make such changes DURING an on-going cycle.
Doing this, is an implicit way of saying that the players' contracts with FIDE are uni-directional - they give the players few or no rights, but mention a number of fines and penalties that FIDE might use for the slightest rule infringement by a player. I don't understand why you, as a top GM, want to sign such contracts with FIDE. For me, that's just very hard to understand.
I hope the Carlsens won't smack my fingers too hard for saying this, but unlike what you seem to believe (or at least implied in your posts yesterday), Carlsen (the younger one) wasn't all that interested in participating in the Grand Prix from the outset. The concept wasn't too tempting, for various reasons - one being the amount of time/calendar space it made unavailable for other, potentially more interesting events. So it was only with notable amounts of doubt that Carlsen entered the Grand Prix in the first place.
However, when the Carlsens went with the Grand Prix, they honestly expected that series of chess events to decide one semi-finalist of the next World Championship cycle - indeed this was clearly stated in their contract with FIDE. Carlsen has at all times (since the GP started) been one of the two top rated in the GP, and hence he surely entered with the purpose of winning it, and he could do so shamelessly.
I find it very, very hard to believe that an intelligent man like Kramnik doesn't understand that a higher chance of reaching an 8-man event against 5-6 of the best players in the world, doesn't at all compensate for the much higher "prize" of finishing first - the right to play ONE match against a slightly random WCC winner. There WILL eventually be ONE Grand Prix winner, and he will have been robbed by FIDE, and what FIDE robbed from him, will have been passed on to the other participants - and Kramnik will gladly be one of those, if he can.
Your view that the system wasn't fair from the beginning, is obviously a valid one. Finding a system that _everyone_ will agree on being "fair" and functional, is an unsurmountable task, though. But agreeing that it's UNFAIR making major changes to an on-going qualification cycle, seriously shifting the distribution of "rights" while breaking contracts etc., shouldn't be very hard to do, for anyone. It's not only unfair, it's simply wrong and, in a normal business situation, illegal.
Finally, it totally breaks any illusions about transparency, predictability and lack of favouritism being values that the current FIDE leadership endorse. I'm disappointed with Kramnik, because his values seem to be on par with those of FIDE in this respect. Unlike those who place all blame with FIDE, I personally consider those who accept and agree with FIDE's typical modus operandi regarding "privileges" to be as responsible for the current situation as the FIDE president and the members of the Executive Board. Hence, my voice of criticism has been directed at Kamsky and Topalov, too.
I hope this clears up most possible misunderstandings about _my_ stand.
Kamsky is the one who benefits most from the loser deal, but I think the focus of our discussion is on the wrong spot.
We shouldn't compare Kramnik with Kamsky/Topalov. If it's about fairness, we should compare Kramnik/Kamsky/Topalov with Aronian/Radjabov
/Gashimov/Wang Yue.
The Grand Prix participants are treated like children. Go play with each other, while the adults are talking business!
"If it's about fairness, we should compare Kramnik/Kamsky/Topalov with Aronian/Radjabov
/Gashimov/Wang Yue."
I completely agree, and I've actually iterated that several times already, using "The Eventual Grand Prix Winner" as a place holder for Aronian/Radjabov/Gashimov/Wang Yue/Carlsen/etc. - Carlsen was clearly in the run before he withdrew.
I should've included this quote in my previous post, sorry for double posting:
"Why are people concerned with "fairness" regarding Kramnik vs Topalov/Kamsky when none of them had any "rights" in the 2008-2011 cycle to begin with? Isn't the "Grand Prix Winner" vs any of Kramnik/Topalov/Kamsky unfairness (assuming Kramnik gets a spot, this way or another) a magnitude or more greater?"
It might be a cultural thing, differences in what kind of legislation one is used to - or something completely different, but I seriously have a hard time understanding that the above is NOT what lots of people are most aggravated about.
To Alexei Shirov :
I am surprised by your comment/reaction about discussions being conducted behind closed doors in this particular case. When was the last time WC regulations were decided in a transparent way?
Otherwise I agree with everything you've written. Good luck in the future!
Well, Mr. Runde, of course you make the point about the contract. But as I am not playing in Grand Prix I don't even know what a contract with FIDE is. In the World Cup it's just one-sided undertaking.
Actually this was one of the reasons I refused to play in Grand Prix - I simply disbelieved that FIDE would finish the cycle.
And now when still having enough time to decide whether to play in the next World Cup or not, I would like to see how FIDE gets out of the latest mess. So far they only have Yerevan confirmed, so it's quite likely that the Grand Prix will be incomplete. So, coming back to the old system seems just impossible. But the problem is that when it's time to take the final decision in March, the privileges of Topalov/Kamsky will already be there and I think such a decision should be stopped. And I see no way to stop FIDE from this.
I don’t see why Kramnik deserves heavy bashing here.
1. After Bonn, Kramnik has NOT gotten any privileges yet. It is the Topalov/Kamsky Loser who gets the direct seed.
2. What is wrong of Kramnik to ask for something he thinks he deserves (indeed he does IMHO) as mush as the Loser ? (I personally would have done the same thing if the guy in the next cubic gets a raise while the whole floor including me does not).
3. Even if the Bonn bid is materialized, it is unlikely that Kramnik will surely get the local boy nomination. In view of the close relationship between the Bonn organizers and Carsten Hensel and the recently severed cooperation of the latter with Kramnik, the local boy may likely be Leko.
…and a few lines about myself to hopefully balance my pro-Kramnik post: Moro’s fan, began to hate Topalov after game 5, Anand became WC in Bonn.
Lee
When is FIDE going to make public the skype meeting?
It seems like they are mixing a U2 album ,What is taking so long?
Lee: I don't see why Kramnik deserves heavy bashing here.
You must look to see.
Lee: 1. After Bonn, Kramnik has NOT gotten any privileges yet.
Not yet. But he got the privileges before Bonn. And he will get them
after Bonn too. And you're the brightest cookie of the lot. Keep up
the good work.
D.
To GM Shirov: Maybe (in this ongoing discussion) my English was ambiguous and poorer than yours: With respect to Kramnik's (potential) seed into the final stage, I shouldn't have written "endorsed" [by Shirov], even if it was moderated by the preceding 'to some extent'.
On wildcards: I generally agree with you that wildcards by themselves are unfair (for the candidates tournament, not for major tournaments as Corus, Dortmund, Linares, ....). However, I wouldn't call a bid with a wildcard 'unfair':
- Organizers may want a wildcard (they want something in return for everything they provide, money and other things ...)
- FIDE offers them a wildcard [thanks to frogbert for posting the link, which also clarifies that the wildcard is not necessarily from the organizing country]
- So, at least from the organizer's point of view, what's wrong with insisting on a wildcard?
I could imagine two unfair aspects with respect to wildcards, both should make the bid non-eligible [but what to do if it is the only bid?]. Taking Bonn as the example (to my knowledge, only Bonn and Elista were so far mentioned as potential bidders):
1) asking for two or three wildcards (Kramnik + Leko + Naiditsch ?)
2) asking for a wildcard rated (just) below 2700 (Naiditsch, at least according to the present rating list).
However, obviously the January 2010 rating list is unknown by the bidding deadline of 4 February 2009, and IMHO the rating difference between, say, 2693 and 2701, is quite insignificant. And if that person ends up winning the candidates tournament against all odds, I would consider him a (relatively) worthy challenger after all. If he subsequently beats [Anand or Topalov or Kamsky] in the WCh match, he would also have my 'benefit of doubt' as a worthy World Champion - but having to confirm his status subsequently in major tournaments.
Disclaimer: Here Naiditsch is just a placeholderr, one possible name, I previously mentioned Vallejo Pons or Nakamura as other possible names.
To frogbert:
"someone with first person experience in this area [Shirov] ... most of us are doomed to be observers from a distance to most of the FIDE/chess politics"
While Shirov had first person experience in the past, I gues/I am afraid that in the present situation he is also "watching things from a distance" - probably closer to the fire than me and most other bloggers, maybe closer to the fire than you and the Carlsens. Still many things happen behind closed doors, and top GM's are just informed about the outcome thereafter.
> So far they only have Yerevan confirmed, so it's quite likely that the Grand Prix will be incomplete.
The simple solution would be: Proceed according to the regulatons for this case. Probably there aren't regulations for this case, or there wouldn't be such a mess now.
But even without regulations, it's basic to find a solution that is as near to the orginal design as possible.
Probably the biggest problem is how you determine the winner of a 4-out-of-6 series, when only 4 events take place.
I don't know. Are there precedents in other sports?
I can think of a substitute tournament where all mathematically possible winners are invited.
Or they play mini-matches. You could try to take into account the points achieved so far by a seeding system. Or, for the sake of simplicity, give everyone equal chances.
These are the possibilities I can think of. There probably are others.
But a candidate tournament, where other players are invited out of the blue, is unjust, unfair. There is no reason for it.
If the organization allows itself to make such changes during an ongoing cycle, it will always favor the big names.
"Hey, there is the real possibility that we may end up with Gashimov or Wang Yue as World Championship contender. Nobody knows them. We won't sell many tickets for this one. Why not change the rules?"
Bartleby, you beat me to it! I was just going to write something on this genre.
To all: If you don't like a Candidates tournament, what better fix to a tourniqueted Grand Prix would you have?
"The simple solution would be: Proceed according to the regulatons for this case. Probably there aren't regulations for this case, or there wouldn't be such a mess now."
Bartleby, there APPEARED to be a safety net in the regulations for this situation. The problem is that FIDE simply pretends that everything is ok until they can't hide that it isn't anymore:
Officially, FIDE had two (2) reserve host cities, Yerevan NOT being one of them. So, in theory FIDE had 8 organizers lined up, only needing 6.
However, at first sign of trouble, it turns out that the "reserve cities" only existed on paper. Hence 8 becomes 6. Then Doha disappears for unclear reasons. 6 turns into 5. Then the Swiss organizer turns out to be simply result of chit-chat between Kirsan and a buddy of his. 5 becomes 4. And then there is the deposit/bank guarantee from Karlovy Vary that seems to be hard to get, so 4 might eventually turn to 3.
The Grand Prix regulations is a rather funny read, though. For instance, this paragraph:
"The third principle is communication. An open and transparent discussion has been held and will continue to be held with all stakeholders to seek continuous improvements in the standards that are offered, in making the tournaments more available to the world chess and non-chess media."
If FIDE indeed had put even _some_ effort on (true) communication, it would've been rather easy to save the Grand Prix, even with only 4 host cities and events. Instead of rushing on with playing in Elista and at the same time announcing a completely new event (that "all stakeholders" certainly had not been involved in creating), the december Grand Prix should simply been postponed. Now, if we assume Yerevan still had offered to step in like they did following the Armenian success in the Olympiad, it wouldn't have been so hard to find some sort of compromise to create a deserved winner of the Grand Prix.
Note that this was before anyone had withdrawn.
Radjabov 2 events played.
Wang Yue 2
Gashimov 2
Grischuk 2
Jakovenko 1
Mamedyarov 1
Aronian 1
Kamsky 2
Svidler 2
Karjakin 2
Cheparinov 2
Bacrot 1
Leko 0
Ivanchuk 1
Gelfand 1
Inarkiev 1
Carlsen 1
Adams 1
(Navara 2)
(Akopian 0)
Assume Al-Modiahki and Pelletier removed (due to Doha and Montreux being gone). For this example, it's not that important whether it's Navara (with 2 events played) or Akopian (with 0), even if it makes a slight difference.
So, there are 19 players left. 9 players have played 1 round, 1 has played 0. Navara/Akopian has played 2/0. With two remaining events, we have 28 "places" to redistribute, assuming 14-man events, but even two 13/15-man events would be a much lesser change than what we're experiencing now. So, it takes 11 or 13 places to bring everyone up to 2 events each. That leaves 15 or 17 "places".
Of the 19 players, Leko (and Akopian) can't possibly get to play more than two. It would make sense to change the format so that the best two events out of 3 count. It follows that the remaining 18 (or 17) players can almost play 1 one more event each, to get up to 3 events to choose from.
For simplicity, I choose the example of using Akopian (Yerevan). It's not hard to do something similar in the case of Karlovy Vary instead or in addition to Yerevan, with 4 or 5 events.
So, 19 players total, 17 players get to play 3 events, Leko and Akopian only 2, 2 best events count. With the original 28 places left, based on 14 players in each event, there are only 15 places left when everyone has 2 events each. In order to leave 17 places, we instead need two 15-player events to complete the cycle with 4 events. Points for 15th place should be set similar to points for 14th place in the two first events:
8 players x 2 events
9 players x 1 event
2 players x 0 events
30 more places in 2 events:
8 players x 1 more event = 8
9 players x 2 more events = 18
2 players x 2 more events = 4
8 + 18 + 4 = 30. The actual distribution could've been like this:
Event 3 ("Elista")
Kamsky 2 -> 3
Svidler 2 -> 3
Karjakin 2 -> 3
Cheparinov 2 -> 3
Jakovenko 1 -> 2
Mamedyarov 1 -> 2
Aronian 1 -> 2
Bacrot 1 -> 2
Ivanchuk 1 -> 2
Gelfand 1 -> 2
Inarkiev 1 -> 2
Carlsen 1 -> 2
Adams 1 -> 2
Leko 0 -> 1
Akopian 0 -> 1
Event 4 ("Yerevan")
Jakovenko 1 -> 2 -> 3
Mamedyarov 1 -> 2 -> 3
Aronian 1 -> 2 -> 3
Bacrot 1 -> 2 -> 3
Ivanchuk 1 -> 2 -> 3
Gelfand 1 -> 2 -> 3
Inarkiev 1 -> 2 -> 3
Carlsen 1 -> 2 -> 3
Adams 1 -> 2 -> 3
Leko 0 -> 1 -> 2
Akopian 0 -> 1 -> 2
Radjabov 2 -> 3
Wang Yue 2 -> 3
Gashimov 2 -> 3
Grischuk 2 -> 3
Note that all pre-tournament favourites also have been fitted into the last event here, and everyone that had a chance to complete 3 events, got a chance. Obviously a slight disadvantage for Leko and Akopian, but at least they could receive some cash compensation for the events they didn't get to play, taken from the part of funds that was meant for FIDE (from the original prize money).
Of course, there might be practical matters for the individual participants that would make some changes to this proposal needed, but if FIDE instead of going "full steam" into disaster, would've taken time to discuss a compromise like mine above with the players, I'm sure it would've been possible to work something out.
I only spent like 20 minutes constructing this suggestion, which creates a rather fair closure of a 4-event Grand Prix, even after the 2 first had been played. But instead of reacting to the REAL problem with the Grand Prix, and hence realizing that players had to be redistributed over the events in order to make a fair playing field, FIDE created the candidates (that does nothing to resolve the potential problem with the GP not being finished) and continued with the Elista event, seemingly hoping that things magically would work out somehow.
And like several people have observed, the "solution" FIDE proposed has only created more problems, instead of solving the one they had. I find that very disturbing, despite how used we are to this kind of mismanagement and poor, badly considered decisions and suggestions from FIDE. Of course the first suggestion of player redistribution was originally made in late November, but FIDE had already announced their "solution". *Sigh*
It’s time once again for Miganalysis; the fascinating study of how one man reconciles the burdens of “chess writer” and “Kasparov flack”.
The difference between a businessman and a valet is the difference between Frederick Friedel and Mig Greengard. The former, a long-time friend and supporter of Kasparov, publishes a Kramnik interview on the occasion of his first child. The latter, a self-professed Kramnik fan, buries a few words of congratulation amidst snide, bizarrely-contorted, disparaging, paragraphs.
The warm fuzzies we remember from the introduction of Mig’s own daughter are nowhere in evidence. Kramnik is first introduced as the loser of the Anand-match and the firer of Carsten Hensel before we read of his becoming a new father. Mig continues to place Kramnik’s joyous news in its proper context:
“I was startled to find out her name is the same as that of Garry Kasparov's wife, Daria (Dasha). No doubt a coincidence, and it's not an uncommon name, but it was still startling.”
--Choosing a common Russian name regardless of its “Kasparovian implications” is typical Kramnik. Finding such a thing “startling” is typical Kasparo-centric Mig.
“Kramnik came looking for a platform, a sort of "not that anyone asked, but...’”
–If Kramnik hired a valet even his off-hand remarks might be celebrated. As it stands, no one cares about the three-time world champion’s opinions about the world championship, of course.
“Then there's a bunch of bizarre stuff about player questionnaires solving the problems of the chess world...”
–Educating oneself about the ideas of ones fellows is bizarre indeed. Makes more sense to create an opposition movement, then learn that you’re in the minority, then quit.
“Back to Kramnik. After the rules have been changed in his favor several times, it's time to criticize the changing of the rules in the favor of others.”
–Mig probably agrees that Kramnik had a moral right to defend his match title in a match, and that his participation in Mexico City was the right decision to avoid re-splitting the chess world. From that perspective Kramnik was accorded no favoritism whatever. And then there's Mig’s defense of Kasparov’s air-drop into the FIDE championship.
How does one reconcile all these conflicting ideas? Simple, one doesn’t bother.
“Kramnik's proposal, however, isn't exactly for equal treatment for all, but making sure he is treated at least as well as Kamsky and Topalov.”
–Kramnik’s preferred proposal is that all are treated justly. And a system which qualifies an individual recently defeated at a high level in the WCC process has plenty of precedent and is not necessarily unjust. But seeding loser of a qualifier (Topalov-Kamsky) over the loser of a WCC match (Anand-Kramnik) is typical FIDE-injustice. Mig’s criticism of Kramnik for boycotting such FIDE-injustice is, well, bizarre.
“It would be interesting to see Kramnik reborn as an opposition leader, but I fear he's merely looking for leverage he'll swap for those privileges he's not asking for.”
–During Kasparov’s term as champion a rigorous, inclusive, and just system was decapitated and destroyed. During Kramnik’s term there was at least some movement in the right direction, and there’s at least some hope for more.
“I wouldn't trade my first months of fatherhood for anything and I hope Kramnik enjoys it as much as I have.”
–And, new-father Vlad whose fan I am, this article is my gift to you.
Hope Greg Koster doesn't mind if others take his posts as a gift.
One hopes that Frogbert and Thomas are paying attention as well, for much can be learned about blog brevity from Koster's comments: he tore to shreds yet another of Mig The Hireling's faux-neutral press releases (yet again a piece of calculated chicanery intended to set loose the hysterical trolldog predators to feast on the corpse of Kramnik's match title and vomit the proceeds to us) -- and he did it in three posts that amounted to less than half of Frogbert's latest tome, which clocked in at close to 1200 words, the length of an average highschool essay.
Of course the punchline is that an average highschool essay is a doctoral exegesis compared to these gigantic posts, which are rarely more than endless tedious riffs on "Uh, you know, I think I kind of agree."
Wordiness isn't next to godliness, guys. Learn from Koster and others: just give us the goods and keep the rest up your urethra for the next emission opportunity.
"One hopes that Frogbert and Thomas are paying attention as well, for much can be learned about blog brevity from Koster's comments: he tore to shreds yet another of Mig The Hireling's faux-neutral press releases (yet again a piece of calculated chicanery intended to set loose the hysterical trolldog predators to feast on the corpse of Kramnik's match title and vomit the proceeds to us) -- and he did it in three posts that amounted to less than half of Frogbert's latest tome, which clocked in at close to 1200 words, the length of an average highschool essay."
I am no big fan of frogbert's long posts, but at least he offers possible creative & fair solutions out of this morass instead of defending questionnaires out of blind adulation. Talking of which, I would like to know why Kramnik was not talking of questionnaires when he was desperate for a match with Anand and FIDE gave it to him. I think Carlsen and a few others were against the privilege at that time too.
"Kramnik’s preferred proposal is that all are treated justly. And a system which qualifies an individual recently defeated at a high level in the WCC process has plenty of precedent and is not necessarily unjust. But seeding loser of a qualifier (Topalov-Kamsky) over the loser of a WCC match (Anand-Kramnik) is typical FIDE-injustice. Mig’s criticism of Kramnik for boycotting such FIDE-injustice is, well, bizarre. "
Seeding the loser of a qualifier over the loser of a WCC match is injustice, but maybe seeding the loser of a qualifier over the winner of a qualifier is probably fair game to Kramnik.
Typical Clubfoot stuff here -- hey, frogbert is trying to deliver a
piece of analysis that nobody has put the effort in generating
yet. Now, I don't mind you admitting to being too weak minded to
generate something like that, but I do mind you acting like a bum in
denigrating that effort. I know that some of you guys from Kramnik
Central are brooding heavily right now, but please spare us the
shotgun blasts of nonsense that spare nobody. BTW, did you understand
at all what frogbert was trying to say? I doubt it.
D.
"As it stands, no one cares about the three-time world champion’s opinions.. "
I guess the world is divided into those who believe Kramnik is a "three time world champion", and those who don't. And never the twain shall meet...
Koster: "It’s time once again for Miganalysis; the fascinating study of how one man reconciles the burdens of “chess writer” and “Kasparov flack”."
And what name do we give to the study of one man's lifelong pursuit to study another man's relationship to Kasparov?
Theorist,
Okay, but first you have to tell me what name we give to the study of one man's pursuit to study another man's pursuit to study another man's relationship to Kasparov.
if the point of posts merely is doing rhetoric exercises while pretending you are "refuting" some point of view, then one doesn't need much space. a couple of strawman arguments and some condescending characteristics will usually do.
if you're going to explain to some (necessary) detail A REAL SOLUTION to the problem FIDE faced in november, without making dozens of implicit assumptions that people won't assume, then you need to spend a couple more sentences.
counting words in my latest post, however, must be one of the most stupid exercises i've seen here in a while. consider this table:
"
Jakovenko 1 -> 2 -> 3
Mamedyarov 1 -> 2 -> 3
Aronian 1 -> 2 -> 3
Bacrot 1 -> 2 -> 3
Ivanchuk 1 -> 2 -> 3
Gelfand 1 -> 2 -> 3
Inarkiev 1 -> 2 -> 3
Carlsen 1 -> 2 -> 3
Adams 1 -> 2 -> 3
Leko 0 -> 1 -> 2
Akopian 0 -> 1 -> 2
Radjabov 2 -> 3
Wang Yue 2 -> 3
Gashimov 2 -> 3
Grischuk 2 -> 3
"
how many "words" were that? i had more than a couple such tables. :o)
I call it love, Greg. You?
greg koster: Kramnik’s preferred proposal is that all are treated justly
why is it so hard to realise that kramnik said something that was wrong (kasparov often did it). seeded with topa and kamsky makes if just treatment and basic fairness to kramnik. not true since it's not fair to the grand prix and world cup players.
@Clubfoot: Attention paid and point taken (as a similar point by Manu a while ago), or at least I am working on it .... .
However, provocative posts (like Greg's and yours) can be kept short - whereas those weighing pro's and con's and giving some explanations are necessarily a bit longer.
Personally, I agree with some but not all of what Greg Koster posted (generally more the pro-Kramnik parts than the anti-Mig/anti-Kasparov parts). And as d_tal posted, much is a matter of taste. He didn't (explicitly) give his own opinion; I would say "don't know/not sure about it" is also a valid answer to that particular question.
"Typical Clubfoot stuff here"
Finally a compliment from inveterate hater Dimi. I feel so blessed.
"Now, I don't mind you admitting to being too weak minded to
generate something like that"
Where'd I admit that? I've checked a few times and can't find an admission of this nature.
"but I do mind you acting like a bum in
denigrating that effort."
Heck, I never denigrated Frogbert's effort, which is more pitiable than anything else. My target was the rotting fruit of the labour raining down on our heads.
"I know that some of you guys from Kramnik
Central are brooding heavily right now, but please spare us the
shotgun blasts of nonsense that spare nobody."
Not strictly true: you're the Kramnik-hating brooder. I'm happy Anand won the WC and you're elated Kramnik lost it. As for the "sparing nobody", I do tend to spare honest or even entertaining posters. And sometimes I even let hysterics like you get away with your fascist nonsense. My problem, I know.
"BTW, did you understand
at all what frogbert was trying to say? I doubt it."
Certainly I understand what he says. I understand it every time he gets around to saying it every thousand words. It's hilarious that you'd jump to the defence of the biggest windbag on Chessninja, (whom you've probably never read either), simply because someone somewhere sometime defended Kramnik -- and we all know THAT can't go unpunished, right?
Mig insults Kramnik for a living, but you and your cronies do it from the heart, for free. It's a pathology that can't be bought. You're living the dream, Dimi baby! Hate on proud.
"Frogbert's effort, which is more pitiable than anything else. My target was the rotting fruit of the labour raining down on our heads."
"the biggest windbag on Chessninja"
Wow - now everything I've written about Kramnik's chessbase interview lately was thoroughly refuted. One has to admire people like Clubfoot, with a sharp and witty pen, and the brains to go with it.
Surely, I will never match the amount of substance and good, useful information typically communicated by Clubfoot. In that respect, this thread serves as a prime example of Clubfoot's superiority. Off to study, guys - we need to learn how to post, and luckily we have star material templates to learn from!
"these gigantic posts, which are rarely more than endless tedious riffs on 'Uh, you know, I think I kind of agree.' "
Clubfoot, I'd like to ask you one specific question. It's simple, so I assume you can do it.
With whome do you think I "agree" - kind of?
a) Dogger (ChessVibes)
b) Mig (ChessNinja)
c) some of their commentators?
d) other?
We already know you are able to spew insults, so just for a break, please reward us with a straight answer to this simple question. :o)
"However, provocative posts (like Greg's and yours) can be kept short - whereas those weighing pro's and con's and giving some explanations are necessarily a bit longer."
Thomas, I agree with you, but provocative posts could go on forever too. My idea of a lengthy but absorbing post is something like GM Shirov's earlier message or your three consecutive posts on the Adios 2008 thread. I just don't believe it necessary to respond to every thought from everyone (Mig wrote about this a month or two back, posting cartoon links); I also believe worthwhile weight-and-consideration arguments -- especially those here regarding the desperate state of FIDE -- can be expressed briefly with concomitant strength. But of course it may be aiming too high on the Net.
Clubfoot, there are forums on the Internet where you can test your wit against other bums in shot gunning insults all day long. Please do not act like a bully here on who can say what and in how many words -- if there's something you do not like, don't read, or even better, don't feel obliged to comment on it.
D.
Anon, I'm no bully but you sure do enjoy playing the victim, don't you? Weep assured I didn't mean to hurt your baby feelings, li'l lambchop, but I did not attempt to dictate terms, not ever. This is the webmaster's purview, followed at some distance by the numerous defilers of Kramnik's WC title reign.
"if there's something you do not like, don't read, or even better, don't feel obliged to comment on it."
Hmmm, where to start with this riveting knee-jerker? How 'bout: usually by the time one figures out whether or not he/she "likes" something, it's TOO LATE! They've already read it! And since you most certainly felt an obligation to comment in my case, why now are you exempting yourself from your own impromptu rules? That's going off-book before the simul even starts, kiddo.
And another, perhaps more important problem, dear victim: you call me a bully and then issue an order regarding how I am to feel or not to feel? That's not even sexy where it should be! Very very clumsy, even for you, poor thingy.
I wonder what all these insult-generating cauldrons of righteous indignation and high self-regard teach their children. I mean wankers like Clubfoot and Greg Koster.
The principal pitiable part of frogbert's Grand Prix fix was that it tried to be "fair" rather than reflect the FIDE internal reality. After half of the top 10, ducked the GP, with only Svidler from the top 5 (yes, he really was!), FIDE was looking to scupper it, and readily found their hangman.
Sorry to bother , but : Where is the skype talk between Topalov and FIDE?
Im curious to know what he said in that interview.
I hope is for good and not to pick the radioactive gauntlet and make things even worst.
"The principal pitiable part of frogbert's Grand Prix fix was that it tried to be "fair" rather than reflect the FIDE internal reality."
The really "pitiable" thing, is that FIDE is both weak and unable to produce neither good processes nor good systems. Hence, they keep "dealing" with a selected few players they feel they "need" for the legitimacy of their events and their title, but it happens behind closed doors and without making sure that "everyone" (of the selected few) really will be happy with their current deals.
The other rather "pitiable" thing, is that players like Kramnik and Topalov prefer this dirty dealing instead of pushing for fair and even playing fields, simply because the reality is that this dealing (at least short-term, probably indefinately) is to their advantage. Hence, we're left with a corrupt system, lots of drama, lack of predictability and an image of "professional chess" as a rather sad, amateurish matter.
Aiming for fairness and honesty and good, proper, professional systems and management, isn't very pitiable in my world. I'm well aware of the FIDE _realities_ - that's exactly why I'm harsh against FIDE as well as Kramnik and Topalov. Why we, the chess fans, allow the "stars" to plead "not guilty", again and again, regarding the mess in the chess world, is something worthy a study on icons and worshipping. The worshipping fanatics and "religious" wars probably cause 95% of the noise in here, stealing away from constructive dialogues based on mutual respect. That's pretty pitiable too, IMHO.
Glad you added that last sentence, HB. For a moment I thought you were calling out Mig. Do you teach your kids to sit by quietly when someone is attacked unfairly? Must be fun listening to the little Berger children calling each other "wankers," or don't they follow your example?
Clubfoot, point taken - but I cannot resist being as frank about Greg Koster's and your posts.
Greg Koster's triple post (which you praised a lot) was in fact one long post rather artifically split in three medium-sized ones. He must have typed everything beforehand (either then pasting from a word processor, or having this site simultaneously open in three browser windows) - because nobody can think or even write [including pasting from Mig's text at the top of the page] quickly enough to submit everything within two minutes.
My three consecutive posts in the other thread were on three distinct subtopics (Bobby Fischer, Ivanchuk/doping, best game of the year).
And at least your provocative post from yesterday 12:32PM was also quite long .... and containing more personal insults than actual content.
Neither you, I or anybody else can define rules for Internet discussions, or should even attempt to do so. But if there are some widely accepted standards (unwritten rules), they include "refrain from personal insults" - you did not insult me, but quite a few other people.
Mr. Runde, but in this particular case Kramnik can not yet be accused of reaching the agreement with FIDE behind closed doors. His match with Topalov in 2006, is a different story though. And, of course, everything that he had done before.
As for Topalov, it was definitely not his idea to keep chess world waiting for 10 months for what would happen with his match against Kamsky. He was ready to play that match either in Bulgaria or Ukraine and didn't demand the seed in the next cycle.
In my opinion Kamsky (and his new manager Sutovsky) deserves the most of credit for accusation. First he says clearly he wouldn't play in Bulgaria, then this 750 000 USD bid from Lvov appears, then it disappears but Ilyumzhinov's "word" is there and he doesn't want to keep it. Ilyumzhinov finds this one move combination to compensate the disappearance of 750 thousand by seeding both players (note that Topalov never demanded those 750 thousand) in the next cycle and then Kamsky is in peace with FIDE again after almost a year of mess.
When I played the final in Hanty-Mansyisk I couldn't imagine there was more on stake than the match against Topalov in Bulgaria, I believe that Magnus thought neither thing during the semifinal. :)
I'll add to Alexei's summary that Kamsky and his very temporary Ukrainian con-man/manager had no means of enforcing the delays or anything else. So while it's one thing to criticize Kamsky and/or Olekasnder Chernenko for offering to lead us on a wild goose chase, it was Ilyumzhinov and FIDE who forced us all to follow it.
Had FIDE stuck to its own deadlines and called Chernenko's bluff on time, I have little doubt Kamsky would have come to the table just like he did in the end. He's not crazy and he's not wrong for trying to get the best deal he can get. That's a player's right. (And everyone knows FIDE doesn't stick to anything, so why not?) It's FIDE's fault for letting it get far out of hand. The players are interested parties and have their advocates. If the judge abdicates, the court is chaos. As usual, greed and personal back-channel dealing (Ilyumzhinov's hasty guarantee of a spurious offer) took precedence over publicly announced deadlines and negotiations.
And again, as it says in the item, favors and blunders get covered up with more favors. FIDE's motto is "Maybe two wrongs don't make a right, but let's see what we can do with five or six wrongs!"
How about this. Have the extra candidates tournament. But there is certainly no need to parachute anyone in directly when we already have several methods of qualifying. Anyone who declined to play in the Grand Prix can still play in the World Cup. Take the final four from the Cup and the top four from the GP and play the tournament, if it's really what Ilyumzhinov thinks is important. But of course the event isn't what he cares about; it's the ability to play favorites and drop a few hand-picked people (here Kamsky, Topalov, and, I assume, Kramnik) five meters from the finish line.
"he's not wrong for trying to get the best deal he can get. That's a player's right. (And everyone knows FIDE doesn't stick to anything, so why not?)"
Mig, there are dozens reasons of "why not". The simple and obvious one, because it's "wrong", will probably not convince you, though.
As long as top players are exploiting the weak organization that FIDE is, the chance that FIDE will improve, is being kept low also thanks to these top players. When it's cold, you can pee in your pants to stay warm for a little while, but don't expect any sympathy from me when you soon after start complaining that you're wet and cold.
>As long as top players are exploiting the weak organization that FIDE
>is, the chance that FIDE will improve, is being kept low also thanks
>to these top players.
True. But keep in mind that until recently the title was fractured --
at least there is some progress now. So, some of this maneuvering
right now are the last reverberations of that nasty period, I feel.
The emotions are somewhat escalated lately though. I didn't hear
anyone make noise when VK got the 2008 title match, which was outside
of the original pre-Elista contract. Ok, then I wouldn't blame
Danailov too much (me being slightly partial here) for going mano a
mano with them and get a deal for his player who has been peaking for
a good period of that time at the top slot.
What really made everybody rightfully pissed is the recent Dresden
agreement -- that was a little bit oo much already... But one can't be
serious to suggest that this was driven by Danailov/Topalov (taking
the partial side again here). It makes no sense. And of course, the
latest stuff from Kramnik had a totally bad timing -- see, on one side
Carlsen tries to make a heroic stance for transparency, on the other
Kramnik goes "Me too, where's my share" of the stolen jewels...
Hopefully this nonsense will stop -- see, there are many tournaments
every year and they all flow pretty smooth, without any of the big
players asking or getting any special deals. Hopefully the WC Cycle
will reach that degree of maturity.
BTW, Carlsen is one of the big 5 now... He can peak at #1 anytime,
from next quarter, to withing a few years from now.
>When it's cold, you can pee in your pants to stay warm for a little
>while, but don't expect any sympathy from me when you soon after start
>complaining that you're wet and cold.
LOL... Only a Norwegian can come up with hilarious stuff like that...
D.
"I do not like the habit, let me put it this way, of FIDE to all the time change the rules during the game."
" I am ready to start at ANY stage of the world championship..."
"...but I strongly believe that I have to start at exactly the same stage as the loser of Kamsky-Topalov,whether it is the Candidates tournament or the World Cup."
Perfectly reasonable. Or would we criticize Radjabov (#1 in the Grand Prix) for: "I'm not saying I'm entitled to seeding into a Candidates Tournament or World Cup, but I strongly believe I have to start at the same stage as Wang Yue (#2 in the GP.)
On the privileges thing, basically Kramnik got his privilege on by getting the match against Anand despite flunking in Mexico.
Topalov got his privilege on with the match against Kamsky despite bombing in Elista.
The fact that Topalov-Kamsky is happening well after Bonn shouldn't take away the fact that privilege-wise, both are equal. So what does Kramnik mean when he wants both to start at the same footing?
"The fact that Topalov-Kamsky is happening well after Bonn shouldn't take away the fact that privilege-wise, both are equal."
Equal? Topalov may qualify to the Candidates tournament by losing a WC match against Kramnik and then losing a candidates match against Kamsky. Now Kramnik, who had beaten Topalov, finished second in the eight player Mexico tournament and lost only one WC match would have to play eight mini matches in the World Cup to qualify to play Topalov in the Candidates tournament. If you call that equal privilege-wise, you have lost your mind.
Trying to blame and shame the players into doing what is "right" has two major flaws. One, it puts you in the position of judging right and wrong. Two, because FIDE is FIDE, it punishes those who do right and rewards the litigious, complaining jerks. Those who stay quiet and do the right thing are ignored and abused by Ilyumzhinov. Those who fight for anything they can get are often rewarded. Is it the our place to blindly wish that everyone acted nicely even though we know that's not going to happen? This is why the root of the problem is FIDE, not Kamsky and not the players. Yes, we should shame them when they do wrong ("wrong"), but let's not pretend that they are the ones in control or really responsible for most of this mess.
What the players are responsible for, however, would require larger and more coordinated action to get FIDE to change. But on a case by case basis, I can't bring myself to harshly criticize people trying to make a living for doing what they can for themselves in a chaotic and broken system.
If the players all acted honorably and charitably in every case FIDE would still be able to play favorites. Imagine Kamsky and Topalov saying, "no, really, we don't deserve to be seeded into anything automatically. We'll just play in the World Cup, thanks." Yes, I know, ridiculous, but let's say. So Ilyumzhinov says, "that's too bad, good-bye. We're taking the next top players off the rating list." And what, we should expect those guys to decline a shot they feel they deserve?
The players can always come up with reasons to accept privileges. Some of them are even very good reasons. So instead of putting the onus on them to behave to your standards of morality, FIDE needs to set and follow transparent and fair rules. Seems obvious, but of course it's far from it in chess. That's why I hope Kramnik, Topalov, Kamsky, Shirov, Carlsen, et al don't get into a circular firing squad when they should have all guns aimed at Elista.
greg koster: Perfectly reasonable. Or would we criticize Radjabov (#1 in the Grand Prix) for: "I'm not saying I'm entitled to seeding into a Candidates Tournament or World Cup, but I strongly believe I have to start at the same stage as Wang Yue (#2 in the GP.)
this piece of impeccable logic has convinced me that kramnik is right :)
"I do not like the habit, let me put it this way, of FIDE to all the time change the rules during the game."
"...but I strongly believe that I have to start at exactly the same stage as the loser of Kamsky-Topalov,whether it is the Candidates tournament or the World Cup."
greg koster, there is something you need to explain to me here: Why is it perfectably reasonable to
a) be against rule changes "during the game", but
b) at the same time REQUIRE ANOTHER RULE CHANGE "during the game", in order to let him (Kramnik) play in the candidates?
The current rule that was decided by the GA indeed is that the loser of Kamsky-Topalov plays in the Candidate tournament, while no such place is guaranteed for Kramnik. So which one is it - is Kramnik REALLY against rule changes during the game, or does his aversion to that only apply when he himself doesn't benefit from the rule change?
I honestly consider his statements to lack some basic internal consistency, but maybe I misunderstood something. The same thing goes for "not asking for privileges", but REQURING the same privileges as that of the loser of a certain match.
"This is why the root of the problem is FIDE, not Kamsky and not the players."
Surely the ROOT of the problem is FIDE, but that doesn't take all possible blame away from the TOP players. It's not like it's forbidden to push in the right direction.
Like pointed out before, there are only a very few players that are really "important" for FIDE, in order to give the necessary legitimacy to their events and their Title. Unlike what I've seen suggested, FIDE won't just continue down the list, if the very top players reject privileges. The current candidate proposal is the crystal clear proof of that. The big majority of the GP participants are really top GMs. Still, FIDE couldn't live with all of Kramnik, Topalov and Morozevich missing - Anand is the Champ, and hence doesn't "count" here.
Nobody will make me believe that FIDE would arrange an unplanned "candidate event" if these 4-5 players rejected privileges that in reality were given on the expense of the GP-players (and the WCC winner). In this respect, Kamsky's decision to (push for? and) accept isn't key. If Anand, Kramnik, Topalov and Moro (of those not in the GP) would decline, then the candidates wouldn't happen.
That is the implicit power of these players in this situation. Kramnik knows that. Topalov knows that. With this power comes responsibility. When they won't claim it themself, we shouldn't have any qualms attaching it to them.
"Trying to blame and shame the players into doing what is "right" has two major flaws. One, it puts you in the position of judging right and wrong."
Simply referring to doing "what is right", was done for brevity. The EXPLANATION why something is "right" and someting else is "wrong", requires notably more words. Noticing that some of your readers suffer from hyper-allergic reactions when encountering longer strings of words not broken up by horizontal rulers, I decided to leave it at that. However, my firm belief is that players like Kamsky should do the "right thing" out of pure self-interest. But clearly opinions differ in that respect.
frogbert: “because it's "wrong"”
There is no evidence that there exists an absolute good, and it just might not exist. What today is accepted behavior may be seen as highly unethical tomorrow.
To expect players to act according to a higher calling - which most people don’t even agreed upon - when their daily life and wellbeing depend on it, is ridiculous.
The easiest thing is to pretend, that there always is a moral (ethical) right way to act, and if only people knew this way, then they would act accordingly and things would improve.
The truth is more likely, that the most efficient way to make a bigger pie is to let everyone and every organization look after its own interest.
The most successful sports (moneywise) have not become successful by the different parties acting in an altruistic way. On the contrary, the players demand outrageous amount of money; the owners try to limit those demand and so forth.
So, do we live in the best of all worlds? Is Kirsan Ilyumzhinov the best solution for the chess scene under the current conditions? It might well be.
Meanwhile chess is being played, and we have a world champion. Next year and the year after that, someone will be called world champion, and we can – happily - discuss if the world champion also is the best player.
Some think that chess players should be earning more, but then again, one can take consolation in the fact that the players could have earned this “outrageous” amount of money of one’s back.
One can only hope that the condition change, that somehow an evil player will rally the masses into his fight with an equal evil opponent for the world championship.
Meanwhile Mr. Runde can design a rating system for ideas. The “more right” an idea is, the higher the rating. Thus the different posts could be rated, and only the post with a certain rating would be published. This should stop all these silly posts.
"The truth is more likely, that the most efficient way to make a bigger pie is to let everyone and every organization look after its own interest."
GREAT idea!! Let's bake a bigger pie before we put a roof on the kitchen and fix the stove! Unfortunately the cultish doctrines of Hayek and Friedman are not a perfect fit for sports organization systems. And anyhow you're not paying attention, are you? Your jungleland no-policy "idea" is already in practice at FIDE, where a one-man rolling crime wave controls a rules system of neo-jazz improvisation. This is why hands are wringing and clothing rent the world over. This is why we're all talking about it right now, looking for solutions.
"Meanwhile Mr. Runde can design a rating system for ideas. The “more right” an idea is, the higher the rating. Thus the different posts could be rated, and only the post with a certain rating would be published."
Careful what you wish for. Your post would be first against the wall (although Mr Runde would require 3,000 words to explain why).
"One can only hope that the condition change, that somehow an evil player will rally the masses into his fight with an equal evil opponent for the world championship."
Kasparov's coming out of retirement to challenge Topalov??
No, Karpov's coming out of retirement to challenge Kramnik.
(Before I get innundated with responses, that was a JOKE)
I find it both sad and symptomatic that there are so many moral relativists in this forum and in chess in general. Even a thoroughly decent guy like Mig finds it evident that it's better to do wrong in an environment punishing those who do right.
The discussion is becoming a bit philosophical here when you bring moral relativism, but well, the absolutists, even when meaning good, are always evil. Absolutism, be it moral (BTW, how does that work exactly?), religious, whatever comes at the expense of thought. Being pragmatic at times is not bad. Now, I do agree with the basic stance from frogbert that this can be a slippery slope where we slide out of control very quickly, as it seems to be the case with all of the rule changes and special exceptions that FIDE makes in a reactive mode, but I think that the strength of the reaction this time will pretty much curtail that going forward.
D.
Dear sophists , any of you knows when are we going to hear the skype meeting between FIDE and the top players?
big hug
"frogbert: “because it's "wrong"”
To expect players to act according to a higher calling - [...] is ridiculous."
You seem to assume that I was merely talking about ethics and morality. Note the two following quotes from my answer to Mig:
1) "Simply referring to doing "what is right", was done for brevity. The EXPLANATION why something is "right" and someting else is "wrong", requires notably more words."
2) "my firm belief is that players like Kamsky should do the "right thing" out of pure self-interest."
Obviously, what applies to Kamsky and those in a similar situation to him, doesn't necessarily apply to players with a STRONGER position, like Kramnik and Topalov to mention two of the more archetypical examples.
"Meanwhile Mr. Runde can design a rating system for ideas."
While I initially could've been tempted to challenge a few of your statements, the above indicates that you don't really want me to explain my point of view, or debate anything with me, and hence I can safely refrain from further comments to your condescending sarcasms.
"With this power comes responsibility. "
Isnt that a quote from Spiderman?
"No, Karpov's coming out of retirement to challenge Kramnik."
I know it's a joke, but I have a follow-up one: Wouldn't Korchnoj be a more worthy challenger, having better chances against Kramnik ? At least he is still practicing chess ... .
frogbert,
I'm going to respectfully decline your invitation to discuss this stuff as I am cursed with A.D.D. and have a hard time making it through one of your posts, much less a string of them.
Moreover, concerns with energy conservation and global warming, not to mention the limited life-span of homo sapiens, suggest that paragraphs like:
"I hope the Carlsens won't smack my fingers too hard for saying this, but unlike what you seem to believe (or at least implied in your posts yesterday), Carlsen (the younger one) wasn't all that interested in participating in the Grand Prix from the outset. The concept wasn't too tempting, for various reasons - one being the amount of time/calendar space it made unavailable for other, potentially more interesting events. So it was only with notable amounts of doubt that Carlsen entered the Grand Prix in the first place."
might be edited down to something like:
"Having better things to do, Carlsen probably was never very enthusiastic about entering the Grand Prix."
Best to you.
@ frogbert, I remember that you in various posts have mentioned that Carlsen did the “right thing”. And in your comment about Kramnik comments, you certainly seem to think that he did the exact opposite of the “right thing” But now you say:
frogbert: "my firm belief is that players like Kamsky should do the "right thing" out of pure self-interest."
So how should I understand that? Could it be summed up in one of those statements?
a) You only have to do the right thing, if and only if, it´s in your best interest
b) If it’s in your best interest it´s always the right thing
At first it seems that this is the opposite of what you have said earlier, but that only so, if the people themselves could decide what is – and is not - in their best interest. But somehow I’m not sure you are going to allow that.
frogbert: “When it's cold, you can pee in your pants to stay warm”
There you have it. People cannot be trusted to decide what is in their best interest; they’re just gonna pee in their pants! No sir; you know better. You know what is in ones best interest. And it just might be the “right thing”.
Frogbert: “and hence I can safely refrain from further comments”
With respect to the rating system for ideas, I did intend to finish on a light note. I did not intent to imply that you favor censure, but to imply that you know what is the “right thing”
@pbdsnrfct
Please retract your previous statement , someone who quotes Spiderman MUST know what is right and what is wrong.
Surely there´re some hidden message here. He wants to be seen as more avantgarde (with caps and all).
Clubfoot: "And anyhow you're not paying attention, are you? Your jungleland no-policy "idea" is already in practice at FIDE, where a one-man rolling crime wave controls a rules system of neo-jazz improvisation."
Aha, so you don’t like the current system and wish for something better. Unfortunately, neither wishes nor wringing of hands prove that there is something better out there.
On the contrary, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov will undoubtedly change the rules again, if it occurs to him that something may please more. And we can only hope that he one day will hit the nail or a viable alternative comes along.
Pbdsnrfct, did you have a point to make? Because you just said absolutely nothing.
(I will grudgingly admit your opening paragraph was beautifully worded and cogently presented, but after that, pfft, nothing).
Now, Bush junior is reported to be settling in Daria Dr. Preston Hollow, TX after he trasitions out of the Presidency. It's Kasparov's wife's name all over again! I am shocked at that and at 3 consequetive apostrophies in my previous sentence.
Quite clearly Kramnik named his daughter after Daria Halprin because he identifies with dirty stinking Summer of Love hippies who spend their worthless lives leeching the special privileges conferred by their hardworking affluent parents. No doubt he hopes that one day Dasha will try to change the world by smoking dope and smelling real bad.
Whoa, I better ease up before I get hired as a Kasparov speechwriter.
*sigh*
"Having better things to do, Carlsen probably was never very enthusiastic about entering the Grand Prix."
Let me forget about your ridiculous arrogant approach for a moment, and explain to you why your "edited" version says something entirely different then my original paragraph.
"I hope the Carlsens won't smack my fingers too hard for saying this,"
Why would they smack my fingers, if I were merely speculating - as your "Carlsen probably was never ..." wording implies? I'm not speculating, I'm reveiling an exclusive piece of INFORMATION that is NEW to the public, AFAIK.
"but unlike what you seem to believe (or at least implied in your posts yesterday), Carlsen (the younger one) wasn't all that interested in participating in the Grand Prix from the outset."
I'm responding to Shirov's comment that Henrik Carlsen "wasn't critical" nor "negative" towards the Grand Prix back when the concept was first presented - neither to organizer nominees. I thought it was relevant to point out for Shirov that EVEN the Carlsens weren't very enthusiastic. That's an entirely different message than your empty chit-chat.
"The concept wasn't too tempting, for various reasons - one being the amount of time/calendar space it made unavailable for other, potentially more interesting events."
Here I provide more actual first hand information. If you think mere assumptions about Carlsen "probably having better things to do" are equivalent to HARD FACTS about why the Carlsens were hesitant, then you'd make a terrible journalist.
"So it was only with notable amounts of doubt that Carlsen entered the Grand Prix in the first place."
This summarizes the paragraph - and technically I must admit that I could've done without the tail "in the first place" as I'd alread mentioned that I was talking about their point of view "from the outset".
---
I find it somewhat amusing that both you and Clubfoot aren't able to come up with a single counter-argument to any of my analysis of Kramnik's statements and the situation in general. The best you can do seems to be childish ad hominems and laughingly arrogant and condescending behaviour: "Huh, huh, we're too good to even be talking to you" is the clear message you leave behind - Clubfoot doesn't even bother to respond to simple yes/no-kind of questions.
I don't know who you think end up looking ridiculous that way. What I do know, is that in the future I'll let the two of you go on petting each other uninterrupted, when you are feeling brilliantly clever and ingenious for every trivial assumption and petty insult you contribute to this blog. I've yet to see any new information or enlightening reasoning by any of you in this thread, so skipping your posts entirely will hardly be any loss.
Good day.
"I remember that you in various posts have mentioned that Carlsen did the “right thing”"
Before we continue, would you like to quote me saying that, say three times? If I really have "mentioned" it in "various posts" as you claim, then it should be really easy for you to do that.
Go spidy go
¨so skipping your posts entirely will hardly be any loss.¨
Not only that , they are easier to skip because they dont last 12 pages like yours.
You should provide a link to your own blog instead of making my fingers erode with the mouse scroll.
The loser of Kamsky-Topalov will be the guy who, in WCC-cycle competition, a) lost to Kramnik and Kamsky or b) the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Kramnik. Kramnik not unreasonably thinks he deserves at least equivalent seeding in a forthcoming Candidates event.
But as to lengthy, stream-of-consciousness posting, I'm thinking I just might have to rethink my position, my view, my way of looking a the whole issue. Why get irritated at having to wade through many words, many sentences, many paragraphs, (or even many words and many sentences and many paragraphs displayed in many posts) to get at someone's point, or to discover whether he has one (a point, that is.) Because, truth be told, one of my favorite people is just this sort of person, a non-self-editing, very wordy type of a guy. Now you're probably wondering how I met this guy, but even if you aren't I'll tell you because you might be interested, and even if you aren't, it's not because the guy isn't interesting, it's because I'm not describing him accurately enough and if that's the case I'm very sorry and, well, slap my hand! But anyway, I have this hobby of riding my bicycle out in the country, outside the Chicago area, where freight trains take rest stops; I mean I'm not sure they're actually rest stops, I don't know why they stop, but stop they do and when they do I look for an open boxcar, and throw my bike in and climb in after it. I ride the train until it gets into Eastern Iowa and then I jump off and bicycle back home to the Chicago area. And I only do this when the wind is blowing from the west, which makes the riding much easier. Well, anyway, one day it was taking me a looooong time to catch my Iowa-bound train. The freight trains just weren't stopping where I was waiting. So I sat around and read and ate sandwiches and drank bottled water for hours and hours and hours until finally a train did stop but by the time I got to Iowa it was after midnight and worst of all the wind switched direction and even worse it started getting cold and it was even raining a little. So there I was, having to be in court the next morning, or actually the same morning since it was past midnight and I was 120 miles away with a bicycle and the wind blowing the wrong way. So I stopped in a truckstop and this guy walks up to me, he's about 65, big guy, and he keeps reaching up one hand to grab into the air, like you'd do when you were a kid and wanted a truck driver to pull his horn. And he introduced himself and told me he was a retired engineer and an author who had published over 45 books and so we got to talking and as luck would have it he had some psychological difficulties, (not that that's lucky, of course) and he had an appointment with his therapist in a small town that was almost all the way to the small town where I live and he said he wouldn't mind putting my bike in the trunk of his car and driving me to the small town where his appointment was. Except that he started off driving the wrong direction, and he kept changing roads because every time a car go behind him he was convinced he was being followed by any number of government agencies and private individuals with a grudge against him, not that I could imagine anyone wanting to follow him or to develop a grudge against him because for all his eccentricities he was really a very nice guy, if a tad eccentric, which you've probably picked up by now without me telling you. Well, to make a long story short, as a gesture of good will, a kind of thank-you for giving me the ride, I agreed to buy one of his books. The name of the books was Armageddon I and II. On the cover of this self-published book was a very nice photo of the two cooling towers of the Byron nuclear reactor. And it didn't take long to realize that the author was a guy who would just drive around the small towns of the Rock River Valley, talk to people, dictate back the conversations he'd had and the things he'd seen, a journal, a diary of sorts; then have it typed up and bound nicely. There are over forty of these volumes out there now. And some time later when I ran into him again I joked that maybe if I did something interesting I'd make it into one of his books and he said, "you already ARE in one of my books." So if I get so much enjoyment out of this person's books (Reggie Kooistra, you can google him) it is surely unreasonable of me to get irritated by lengthy productions on a chess blog. I suppose you might quibble that a book is not the same thing as a blog and that different writing standards should apply. I guess I don't mean that YOU might quibble, but that ONE might quibble, all though I don't want to accuse you or anyone else of quibbling. I can't quite say I've come around to your point of view, but I did just want to say that after thinking it over long and hard, long and hard, that I've decided to try to keep an open mind on the whole business. Which can beg a fault in itself, of course. Sometimes a decided mind (I was going to say "closed" mind, which is the same thing but doesn't sound nearly as good) is just what the situation demands, just what the doctor ordered. Now where was I? So anyway, so the long and short of it is that I just don't know but you can be sure I'll be thinking about it, mulling it over, chewing on it.
@greg koster ´s first paragraph:
Not at all , if Kamsky wins it would be the guy who beated Topalov AND Kramnik.
Did you hear about the phrase ¨long think, wrong think¨?
You just mirrored it in writing.
Manu,
Get real, will ya? We're talking about the lead-in to an upcoming cycle, not a match 15-years ago.
If we try to live in the present then i would refer to Topalov as the number 1 ranked player in the world , but that would be me and my reality disorder talking.
Greg Koster:
be informed: I have submitted your post for publication. There is much noise about a new Joyce. However you can forget about royalties.
It was like a hammered GG Marquez and William Goldman croaking into two dictaphones at a deserted script convention. Or frogbert with someone interesting to say.
"You know your arguments are pretty darn good, when all your counterpart can do, is picking at your style..."
¨less is more and more is less¨ ,
That phrase picks on both your style AND arguments.
The day you discover what an "argument" is, manu, somebody might start caring about your posts.
Regarding brevity, you should post something like this: "Imagine that I post an insult after every post of frogbert, regardless." That would have rendered your 10 last posts directed at me superfluous - as well as 100 unwritten ones. Note that nobody has responded to any of those posts, until now. You might consider that a hint.
Don't worry about these attacks Frogbert. The next mention of Topalov/Kasparov/Kramnik will send your adversaries into their tribal foxholes as they turn their poison pens against their customary opponents. These guys like to 'fight', secure in the armour of their internet anonymity and they will soon turn their fire on their current comrades. You just wait.
I had stopped posting in this thread because I think everything relevant was already said, and often more than once ... .
@Manu: I didn't count how many times you have mentioned that Topalov is #1 on the rating list - regular or even casual visitors of this site will know by now. In advertising, 20 1-minute spots on 20 days (or 20 weeks) may well be more efficient than one 20-minute spot - but this forum is (hopefully) different ,:).
[It may be a bit unfair to single you out, similar things may apply to other posters, including Thomas ,:)]
Anyway, this thread may still reach 200 comments with ongoing stuff about style and length of posts, personal insults or bizarre off-topic posts as the long one by Greg Koster. But I am out unless someone comes up with something really new and pertinent. I think attention should switch to the Corus tournament (still a very strong one even if three guys aren't participating).
BTW: Greg's post was still entertaining in a way - luckily one did not have to read all the way to the very end to get the message or joke behind it!
Koster's post was not off-topic in the least.
"But I am out unless someone comes up with something really new and pertinent."
Promise, promises. Still, such conceit is a sight to behold, even on this blog.
Sorry , is that i found it funny when you talk about your ¨style¨.
I ll leave you alone for a while , you deserve some privacy with your fans.
And i have to say that my latest posts contained a lot of constructives suggestions for you .
So i resent that :)
Why all that mentions to how many people read or answer my posts (or anyone posts for that matters)?
You seem to have some big issue regarding the attention and care you get.
OK, promise broken right away, but I am just too curious ... :
"Koster's post was not off-topic in the least."
If things weren't clear, I am referring to the one posted Jan 17 2:27PM. The first paragraph contains a statement on chess (actually one I tend to agree with), but what about the lengthy second paragraph (974 words, as you were introducing word counts into the discussion) ?? The single word related to chess, and even to some versions of WCh cycles, is 'Armaggedon' ... . Or did I miss something by only scanning this paragraph rather than really reading it, one or several times ?
“Style is not something applied. It is something that permeates. It is of the nature of that in which it is found, whether the poem, the manner of a god, the bearing of a man. It is not a dress.” ---Wallace Stevens
“A man's style is his mind's voice. Wooden minds, wooden voices.” --Emerson
“Lennox Lewis, I'm coming for you man. My style is impetuous. My defense is impregnable, and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat his children. Praise be to Allah!” --Tyson
"Bravery is the capacity to perform properly even when scared half to death.” --Omar Bradley
In 2000, Kramnik gave his opponent an unwanted and unused opportunity to display this quality. That was the original, unforgivable sin and occasionally, directly or through Mig, out slips the Kasparovian obsession to punish what can never be forgiven or forgotten.
When it slips out in whining, carping asides, the Kasparovian obsession is called out by Clubfoot, Koster and others. Who are in turn called obsessive by the Hardy Bergerians.
But what are we to make of Hardy's obsession with Clubfoot, Koster, and co? And what of those who are obsessed with Hardy's obsession?
Oh boy, it must be really hard to be Kramnik´s fan in this time.
My condolences ,but the party is over.
In case you can call ¨party¨ a meeting between Leko , Kramnik and the hole crew of Koster´s delirious boat.
Not hard at all, Manu. Kramnik fans have things to appreciate about him even when he's losing.
When GKK was down a game or two in London he panicked. When VT went down two games in Elista he started pulling distractions. When VK went down three games in Bonn he walked in calmly, fought back, won a game, and warmly congratulated the winner.
Thats an interesting way to say that Anand made him swalow his words.
He tried to pick up a fight like with the bathroom and Veselin , but Vishy ignored him (and chessbase and people like you) and just dismantled his chess.
and besides , What was the other option?
As a fan you should know about his pasive-agressive abilities.He wouldnt made an scandal in Bonn,not against Vishy.
Putin is another guy who never makes scandals, and is russian too.
Manu - i see that you are still at it.
Your low-class comments only shows what kind of person you are and i feel sorry for you. I tell you again. P**s off.
To digress somewhat, I see another Grand Prix (Karlovy Vary) event has hit the buffers. What on earth is happening? The whole FIDE WCC Qualification system is in trouble.
Manu, I think here you should have "swallowed your words". I do not have the slightest clue which potential scandal - remotely comparable to 'Toiletgate' - you mean with respect to the Kramnik-Anand match. OK, Kramnik had done some 'verbal teasing' ("I only borrowed the title") - but that was still chess-related and before, not during the match.
And during the match, even without scandals, the friendly atmosphere between the players, BTW including the winner respecting the loser, was not self-evident [but it surely was nice to see].
Considering your last sentence, I have to become a bit personal, but in a friendly/constructive way: You certainly do not want to be held (personally) responsible for everything which other Argentinians did in the past?? I am now digressing a bit (and maybe not everyone can follow me here): Some years ago there was a huge discussion here in the Netherlands whether princess Maxima could be blamed for the somewhat dubious role of her father during the military government [it certainly was also mentioned in Argentinia] - and the right conclusions were taken in the end.
Final statement: Being a fan is more credible if it applies 'in good and bad (not-so-good)' times. So there is nothing whatsoever wrong about (still) being a fan of Kramnik, or Ivanchuk, Morozevich, Shirov, ..... . From what you wrote before, you became a Topalov fan during the San Luis WCh - not before when he was nicknamed 'Flopalov' by some people because it seemed he couldn't make the final step towards the top [you are excused because back then you weren't interested in chess at all !?]
A few notes on the latest moronic Manu inferno:
"He tried to pick up a fight like with the bathroom and Veselin , but Vishy ignored him"
Topalov and his manager initiated the off-board conflict in Elista.
"and besides , What was the other option?"
This bit of blank rhetoric doesn't make any sense, but since utter nonsense is one of your devices, we'll let it slide.
"As a fan you should know about his pasive-agressive abilities.He wouldnt made an scandal in Bonn,not against Vishy."
But wait, just a second ago you claim that Kramnik "tried to pick a fight" with Anand. Now he wouldn't dare? And only the most squalid hater would claim that good sportsmanship is passive aggression. With this malignant lie you have licked the bottom of the landfill, not an easy thing.
"Putin is another guy who never makes scandals, and is russian too."
So Kasparov's enemy must be Kramnik's patron, huh? Even Mig couldn't have twisted it like that.
And is anyone going to point out Manu's hilarious assault on the language? I don't mind:
"...and the hole crew of Koster´s delirious boat."
Now there's a classic from the bottomless Manu well of stupidity and accidental comedy. Brava!
There you are , thats the spirit.
Here comes the stones the pacifists are throwing.
I have to say im sorry my English was that bad in the latest posts, im making a movie and didnt have the time 2 check my spelling.
Ok right to the fun part, one by one:
@Rubinstein , i missed you ,and i have to ask you
Why are you censoring yourself? Do the full insult thing like clubfoot!
@Thomas, I mentioned Putin as great example of passive agresive behaviour, because Kramnik used that many times(lend the crown, hurry to whatch games , etc).
The comparison between Maxima is not very sound , she might be related to some dictators , so what? She is yours now , ja.
@clubfoot:
Why are you insulting me? Do like Rubinstein!
BTW Anyone noticed that the second part of the interview with Kramnik is not out yet?
What happened , lot of ugly feedback?
Anyone noticed that FIDE didnt publish the skype meeting with Topalov ?
Mmmm.
Manu, maybe you didn't get the point behind my second paragraph - let me cite a 'short' version of your last sentence to explain what I meant:
"Putin ... is russian too."
What did you want to say?? "No surprises, all Russians are the same, all acting or behaving like Putin" - at least I understood it that way. And such a statement is highly questionable, not only because at least one Russian (Kasparov) will strongly disagree.
So I just wanted to stress that 'not all Argentinians are the same' (cannot be blamed for things done by their fellow-countrymen) - maybe my specific example wasn't well-chosen, couldn't come up with anything better.
And I still don't understand what you mean with
1) "He [Kramnik] tried to pick up a fight"
2) "passive aggressive behaviour" [and, in your subsequent post, "hurry to watch games"]
BTW, I did not really like to be 'sandwiched' between Rubinstein and Clubfoot in your 10:46AM reply post - because I always try to remain constructive and to refrain from personal insults.
And to suggest some answers to your questions (not necessarily the correct ones, but plausible ones):
"BTW Anyone noticed that the second part of the interview with Kramnik is not out yet?
What happened , lot of ugly feedback?"
Maybe Kramnik himself intervened asking that a private telephone conversation should remain private, and at least the second part shouldn't be published after all. I still assume that Frederic Friedel asked during the conversation if it could be recorded and released to the public. But even if Kramnik spontaneously answered "Sure, no problem!" he may regret it later on. And the second part potentially contained even more sensitive information (why he parted with his long-time manager). Here, both parties had kept the initial announcement [intentionally !?] short, without details - Kramnik may want to give such details to a friend who happens to be a journalist, but not to everyone ... and I think this should be respected.
Then, not publishing the second part (and not saying why) is not the most elegant solution, but one which allows both Kramnik and Friedel to save their faces, at least to some extent.
"Anyone noticed that FIDE didnt publish the skype meeting with Topalov ?"
Here, things have changed (again) in the meantime, with the cancellation of another Grand Pix event - so whatever was discussed during the Skype conference may be no longer up-to-date. And I repeat that Topalov and/or Danailov are free to release their statement/their opinion on the future of the WCh cycle on their own, just as Henrik+Magnus Carlsen did.
I didnt mean to be rude to you , you always answer in the best way (not only to me ).
Ok, my russian remark was not intended in generalize to russian people.I just find Kramnik´s hypocrital ways
very similar of Putin´s , and in that context your example is accurate(about Argentinians and our past).
About Kramnik trying to pick up a fight: i remember a comment in Elista 06 about finishing a game in a rush because his favorite team was winning?! ,
there are many examples of this way of teasing adversaries in many of Kramnik´s interviews.
I found that behaviour both valid and disgusting.
@the second part of Kramnik´s interview: The delay clearly indicates editing or even rewriting of some parts.
IMO Kramnik usually tries to send messages to his adversaries in his interviews , and he always did that with the help of friendly media (mostly chessbase for what i saw).
And they seem to do that very well because he always managed to cover his lies and put the blame on his adversaries.
For me his image of a very polite ,calm and nice boy is very unnatural to say the least , i find a lot of very common and cheap advertising tactics in the way he releases information ,not to mention the way he always use the phrase ¨to be honest¨, but that would be a long talk for another moment.
I like Topalov but i also have a bad feeling about him not publishing his opinions in this case.
I usually dont write this long, but as we say in Argentina : nobleza obliga.
"BTW, I did not really like to be 'sandwiched' between Rubinstein and Clubfoot in your 10:46AM reply post - because I always try to remain constructive and to refrain from personal insults."
Good lord Thomas, why the human doily routine? Quit being such a lightweight. If you're going to indulge Manu's lies and stupidity, don't blame others for deciding to call him out instead. And of course you'll see that you reached the same place: when gently pressed, Manu revealed what everyone knew already about the worst-motive assumptions that spring from his deep and motiveless hatred of Kramnik. So was it really worth it to you?
You have your own way of posting, which includes responding to absolutely everyone and spending more time on this blog than anyone else by half. Let others post as they wish, and abandon your facile and arrogant claim to a moral high ground.
200
Just two remarks [and here I am posting comment #200 after all ,:) ]:
About Kramnik using friendly media: Nothing wrong with that IMHO, and he is not the only one. Topalov has Chessdom - I don't know how 'formal' the link is, but from my impression they are unlikely to ask critical questions or add critical comments. Carlsen preferentially uses his own website. Kasparov had kasparovchess.com - some people think that now he has chessninja.com.
[Kramnik, as other GM's, also has an own website - but it is probably not that influential/widely read simply because it is not regularly updated].
About the Kramnik interview being edited or even rewritten: Under the circumstances I wouldn't even mind ... . Taking Part I at face value, Kramnik was prepared to talk about his baby daughter and 'immediate implications' (not playing Corus and Linares because he wants to stay with his family). But maybe he wasn't quite prepared to talk about other topics. Someone (don't remember who) suggested that things were done on purpose, mixing sentimental private topics with chess politics ("Kramnik will appear with a puppy in Part II"), personally I do not want to read between the lines in such a way.
And - if there is editing and rewriting going on - it is at least unprofessional if it takes THAT long. So for the time being I still favor my wlternative explanation, acknowledging that the future may prove me wrong ... .
Congratulations for making #200 before I got a chance ... .
If "heavyweight" means using strong language and personal insults, I am happy to be and remain a "lightweight". Anyway, I am not a native speaker, so words such as 'moronic' aren't part of my vocabulary ,:) - and I am rather tolerant towards language or typing errors by other non-native speakers.
And of course I "let others post as they wish" - anyway I couldn't prevent it even if I wanted to. Same if others don't like my posts.
" Someone (don't remember who) suggested that things were done on purpose, mixing sentimental private topics with chess politics ("Kramnik will appear with a puppy in Part II"), personally I do not want to read between the lines in such a way."
Lol , it was me of course, im a paranoid android.