In the latest "only in FIDE" twist, reports say Azerbaijan is ready to host part of the candidates matches. Only part, because Armenia's Aronian is already a candidate and the two countries are hostile. Therefore, another site will be required to host his match or matches. But, and here comes the real zinger, Azerbaijan insists that this other site can't be Armenia! How and why they get to insist on this is beyond the scope of the limited news available, which seems to all be based on one report from an Azerbaijani news site, mentioned on ChessBase here. The Azerbaijani news outlets aren't exactly paragons of accuracy, so let's see what comes. The article also says the matches will be at the end of 2010 or early 2011.
Radjabov is a hot favorite to join Aronian as the second qualifier out of the Grand Prix. But even if he's not, he'd now become the likely recipient of the organizer wildcard spot FIDE inserted in a classic piece of political gamesmanship to make the event easier to sell. This, in turn, puts Kramnik at greater risk of missing out, since he was the favorite to get the wildcard spot if he failed to get in by rating. I don't mean that entirely critically. A former world champion, and one from a powerful federation shared with the FIDE president, would always be a top contender. In yet another parenthetical, Gashimov is set to take the #1 spot for Azerbaijan, so it might be a tough call. He's also a contender for the last Grand Prix spot.
We just talked about the cons of Anand playing on Topalov's home turf in Sofia. But facing Radjabov or another local in Baku in such a high-profile event could potentially be a more serious matter. The dictatorial regime there doesn't mess around, and as much as I'd love to believe in gens una sumus and the purity of sport, the fact they've already made such a power play regarding Aronian doesn't provide much room for optimism. It's a top-down country and while that's occasionally handy for Ilyumzhinov-style crony sponsorship (Tripoli 04, anyone?), it can also be trouble. To be fair, Azerbaijan gets the same 6/5 "Not Free" ranking from Freedom House as Russia and they haven't had much in the way of chess shenanigans, the lunacy at Elista 2006 notwithstanding. (For those who don't like to mix their chess with politics, or who like to pretend that chess and politics don't mix, my apologies.)
Kramnik's gotta be a good chance (perhaps favourite) to get a Candidates spot on rating. There are ratings two spots on offer, and they're using the average of July 09 and January 10 lists. In July 09 the top 3 who have not otherwise qualified are Carlsen (2772), Jakovenko (2760) and Kramnik (2759), followed by a 4 others in the 2750s. But since then Jakovenko has fallen and Krmanik risen. (And Carlsen is set to rise by heaps). So I'm guessing that by January 2010 the two ratings qualifiers will be Carlsen and Kramnik.
The 2nd Grand Prix qualifier (after Aronian) is far from clear because they discard the lowest score.
Yet another salvo from Azerbaijan, which cannot seem to emerge from the stone age. And boo to FIDE for licking Baku's boots and agreeing to this blackmail.
If FIDE thinks that it can take chess from out of the sewer in terms of international PR and commercial sponsorship with these kinds of moves, they may as well stop the clock, shake hands, and resign.
Radjabov has already gone on record as a racist. He should be banned for such racism.
The world should stand up and say no to this crap. It is yet another sad chapter in the blunderville house of horrors called FIDE.
"Only part, because Armenia's Aronian is already a candidate and the two countries are hostile. Therefore, another site will be required to host his match or matches. But, and here comes the real zinger, Azerbaijan insists that this other site can't be Armenia! How and why they get to insist on this is beyond the scope of the limited news available"
Because....the two countries are hostile?
More precisely, because Armenia is occupying parts of Azerbaijan's territory.
If those other matches are held in Armenia, it would seem like "Azerbaijan and Armenia" are organizing the Candidates. Naturally an occupied country will have problems agreeing to something that looks like a normalizing of relations with the occupier.
In any case I don't see why they shouldn't be granted this if Aronian is already granted the right to play outside Azerbaijan.
Mixing chess with politics doesn´t bother me , what gives me the creeps is when politics and people got in the same bag.
Because when that happens you start hearing things like Armenians are this or Azeries are that or Jews or Palestinian or whatever.
Lets not forget that politicians don´t represent people , they manipulate people which is a very different concept .
Politic is designed to filter out good people and keep the most despicable elements of every society , which of course then procede to abuse of their faculties and declare war , invade , steal , etc.
I´m saying this because when this kind of thing happens is because we all live in the stone age , not just Azerbaijan.
@Peter Ballard: In the linked Chessbase report, they are talking about one player qualified based on rating, not two. If they are indeed using the average of July 09 and January 10, I think that would be Carlsen. Unless he spoils his rating in the Tal Memorial - maybe one more reason why he is not playing the European team championship?
I believe they moved to 2 spots just in case Kramnik couldn´t make to the first set up.
:)
It's one thing for Azerbaijan to say it won't host an Armenian player. But why should they be allowed to say Armenia can't host an Armenian player? Of course they can say they would insist on Armenia not co-hosting even if there were no Armenian candidate, and I assume this is what you are implying. But if Aronian weren't in they'd just host all eight players in Baku. Again, the reporting on this is spotty, so even what they say isn't clear at the moment, let alone what they really mean.
My question wasn't why Azerbaijan would want to do this, but why it should be allowed. Tripoli not allowing Israelis to play again comes to mind. Criticizing Qaddafi is a bit obvious when the real issue for us is FIDE allowing someone like that to call the shots. Same thing goes here. One may consider Azerbaijan's grievances with Armenian entirely legitimate, but that doesn't mean FIDE should allow them to decide who can play where based on those grievances. If you're not going to accept gens una sumus, don't host events. More to the point, FIDE shouldn't be allowing countries who will discriminate like this to host events.
Well, there are two spots (and only one from the World Cup) -- of course after Nanjing Carlsen is virtually guaranteed to get one of them, and indeed Kramnik is the favourite to get the other, although it's far from over for some of the others. Unless the rules were changed again on the congress? I think we would have heard about that.
http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regscandidates.pdf
"The players who qualify for the Candidates Matches are determined according to the following, in order of priority:
2. 1 Challengers Match 2009 - The player who lost the 2009 Challengers Match (G. Kamsky) qualifies.
2. 2 World Cup 2009 - The winner of the World Cup 2009 qualifies.
2. 3 World Championship Match 2010 - The player who lost the 2010 WCC Match (V. Anand or V. Topalov) qualifies.
2. 4 FIDE Grand-Prix 2008/2009 - The two (2) top players from the FIDE Grand-Prix 2008/2009 qualify to participate.
2. 5 Average FIDE Rating List of July 2009 & January 2010 - Two (2) players qualify to participate by rating (excluding the
players who qualify from articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 above). For the purpose of deciding the 2 rated player qualifiers, the average
from the following lists will be used: rating of July 2009 plus rating of January 2010 divided by 2."
FIDE handbook says two players qualify based on rating, dunno if they have changed it to two players from World cup since then: http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regscandidates.pdf
..and...
"2. 6 One nominated player by the Organiser - A player, nominated by the organiser, with a rating of at least 2700 in the FIDE rating list of January 2010."
Azerbaijan won the bidding and all the games were supposed to be played in Azerbaijan. I don't see what the Azeris are doing wrong by moving half the event outside of their country to accomodate Aronian, and now some even say that it isn't right that Azerbaijan have the right not to move half their event to Armenia :-) I mean, considering that the Azeris probably will have two participants seeded in two halves, one of them would be forced to play in Armenia in an event the Azeris pay to arrange (compare with Aronian's situation) ! :-)
"My question wasn't why Azerbaijan would want to do this, but why it should be allowed."
Well, my point is that I assume it's for the same reason that Aronian is allowed to play outside Azerbaijan. And as you say, it wouldn't even have been an issue if Aronian hadn't been granted this right to begin with. And I'm not saying that wasn't reasonable as well. Quite the contrary.
"Tripoli not allowing Israelis to play again comes to mind."
There was never any official statement from Libya that said Israelis weren't welcome, but several that said they were. It's hard to deny they were actually invited, since they were. I know there were rumours about someone saying this or that, but official statements - and actions - trump rumours.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=421308&contrassID=1&subContrassID=7&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
It's still two by rating and one from the World Cup. (Let's hope it's Akopian...) By rating it's Carlsen surely, Kramnik almost certainly. Leko, Radjabov, Jakovenko, and Morozevich were the only real contenders and they all dropped significantly while Kramnik has climbed a goodly amount. It would take a major meltdown by Kramnik at the Tal Memorial, something along the lines of -4, and a similarly unlikely positive result by one of the aforementioned for it to even be close.
On the July list, Kramnik was 3 points ahead of Lékó and Radjabov, 4 points ahead of Gelfand, 8 points ahead of Morozevich. On the "live list", he is now 20 points ahead of Lékó, 24 points ahead of Radjabov, 14 points ahead of Gelfand, 22 points ahead of Morozevich.
The most likely to catch up, but not the only one who might, should be Gelfand - he need to earn 18 (14+4) points more than Kramnik until the next list. Actually 17.6. There is no need for a disastrous result like -4. If Kramnik scores that in Tal Memorial Gelfand wouldn't even have to gain rating points at all to overtake Kramnik due to that event alone. And there is London too.
...until the January list...
I thought Gelfand was going to play in the European Team Championships too, but he isn't. (Not that Israel is a European country, but they are still participating..) Anyway, I maintain that it doesn't necessarily take anything near a "major meltdown" for Kramnik to lose his spot. He is unlikely to, of course.
I followed the Tripoli situation very closely and unless the organizer's words to the (Arab) press that "the Zionist enemy" would never be allowed to play don't count as official statements, it's simply falling for a simple trap to say Israelis could have played. (Gulko said he wouldn't play unless Khaddafi (the son and organizer, Mohammad) retracted his statements, which he didn't.) Of course FIDE and the Libyans didn't want to come out and say that. Quite the opposite, as the initial release inviting them you linked to shows.
Recall that as with this candidates event and Aronian, FIDE initially announced they would split the KO so the Jews wouldn't play in Libya. (Malta was the suggested second host.) When they finally dropped that, as expected, they kept adding extra conditions that would make it unacceptable for the Israelis without ever saying they couldn't play. No security, no coaches or wives, no visa until actually arriving in Libya, etc. It's an age-old game. After it is perfectly clear you aren't welcome eventually you give up and they say, "it's a pity they didn't come after we were so generous as to invite them."
At least Azerbaijan isn't playing that game. It's a pity FIDE is allowing them to play the simpler one.
Unless Magnus cleans up so good he gets both rating spots...
A 17+ point swing in a space of one or two events would be quite dramatic, I'd say. I wasn't sure they were going to rate London for the January list but it looks like it makes it under the wire. So make it -4 total, unless one of the other contenders makes a big leap. Anyway, seems exceedingly improbable.
Israel would get pretty lonely if they only played sports against regional countries that would travel to Israel and host Israeli players and teams. I'm sure the 'real' Europeans wouldn't mind getting rid of the Maccabi basketball team that has a habit of winning the European Championship!
Hmm, Zurab Azmaiparashvili is coaching the Azerbaijani team in Novi Sad this week. Didn't see that one coming.
Only rational reason for this MAY be that they have bribed his excellency Kirsan so well they hope to get 2 ppl into candidates (if one of them qualifies via the Grand Prix).
I really hope Radjabov is paired with Aronian and gives a couple of press-conferences before he gets skinned.
Mig, once again I do not see any good reasons for such a hostile attitude towards Azerbaijan. Yes, you are friends with Garry, but let's try to be fair here.
Firstly, I would check the sources once more. I think Azerbaijan really wanted this tournament and they never said they would not host an Armenian player. On the contrary, as far as I know, they were ready to guarantee the best playing conditions for him. And they have a history of hosting Armenian players in international sports events held in Baku (boxing, wrestling, etc.). I am sorry, but comparisons to Libya are out of place.
The way I see it is that Azerbaijan clearly won the bidding for the tournament (and they have organised good tournaments in the past). But now, just because Aronian is in the mix, they get swindled out of hosting the event (or half of it). Who is in the wrong here? I don't suggest that anyone is wrong, but it is certain that the Azeris are not wrong either. They just wanted to host a tournament, and they do not get it because of politics.
I also agree with pb's post above - there is a chance that one of the Azeri players would be seeded to play in the other half, and I understand them demanding the same treatment for their players as Aronian gets. The country wanted to host a tournament, it gets robbed of it and gets blamed for it by everyone, as if it's their fault. Granted, it may not be the best country in the world, but I am once again surprised by the media bias and the double standards even in chess reporting.
First of all, the issue was of course never about "Jews" but about Israelis. And yes, I count that alleged statement as a rumour - media can report wrongly (yes, it has actually happened), and they denied that it had ever been made. Makropoulos asked the rhetorical question if they should cancel the World Championship due to some rumour that spread over the internet, and for once I agree with him. Of course if it WAS made, their statements and actions meant it was effectively retracted anyway. No doubt the Israelis wouldn't have felt particularly welcome (like Arabs don't in Israel), and as you say there was other sorts of discrimination. But as for the specific issue I was addressing, they would have been allowed to play, had they chosen to. At least by Libya! Israeli law said otherwise, but maybe they solved that matter.. It's another thing that Israeli representatives are lucky to be allowed to play anywhere... But I won't go there now.
"I think Azerbaijan really wanted this tournament and they never said they would not host an Armenian player."
Agreed. I wonder where this idea comes from? Good post overall, and I also agree with pb.
This post echoes the words of Kasparov recently. –It's about time to pull chess out from the warzone in east Europe.
To be fair to Azerbaijan (or at least get the - apparent - facts right), according to an earlier report at Chessdom Aronian would have been welcome in Baku:
"Aronian's arrival to Baku would not be a particular problem. "This question is not an obstacle for the negotiations" - Mair Mamedov assured us - "Moreover, Azerbaijan has the experience of accepting Armenian athletes, in particular the Armenian fighters in the 2007 World Wrestling Championships. Azerbaijan is a tolerant country, capable of welcoming the neighbors and accepting the guests."
http://www.chessdom.com/news-2009/baku-candidate-matches
Subsequently, Aronian himself said that (for IMO understandable reasons) he wouldn't play in Baku. And then the shenanigans start: Azerbaijan would have welcomed Aronian (and might have sold this as some sort of propaganda victory?), yet they object to being on equal terms with Armenia (a propaganda victory for the other side?). In the old days, candidates quarterfinal matches were often held in four different locations, and I don't think any organizer did, or could have objected to any of the other locations.
Some other issues:
1) Did FIDE opt for matches rather than a tournament, "wisely anticipating the current situation"? It would be more difficult to have a tournament in two different places, though maybe there would also be a creative solution ... .
2) Apparently, only Azerbaijan but not the co-organizer gets the right to nominate a wildcard. Who could the co-organizer be? Was there some sort of deal with Turkey or Singapore? But would Aronian enjoy to play in Turkey??
3) It may even be more logical (applying FIDE logic) to change the rules of the WCh cycle again to accomodate a second wildcard - as nothing can surprise me any more, I wouldn't be surprised if this actually happens. Which other spot would then be sacrificed?
If it's the second spot from the GP tournaments, we may see Radjabov (or Gashimov) losing their spot and reentering through the back door ... .
If it's the second rating spot, this would be the definite end of any rumors concerning FIDE giving privileges to Kramnik.
Can anybody explain how the candidate matches will be played. How do they get from 8 to 1 candidate? Is it like a traditonal cup; Quarter-finale, semi-finale and finale? Will the first pairings be decided by drawing or by seeding?
I guess Aronian would rather prefer to start playing against Kamsky than Carlsen or (the looser of the match) Topalov/Anand...
Unless this has changed, or will be changed:
http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regscandidates.pdf
"3. 1 Matches Format & System
A First Round of Matches (8 players)
a1 Matches System: The player who lost the World Championship Match 2010 (V. Anand or V. Topalov) is ranked No.1, the rest are ranked in rating order using the FIDE Rating List of January 2010. The players are paired the following way: 1 vs 8
(match 1), 2 vs 7 (match 2), 3 vs 6 (match 3), 4 vs 5 (match 4). Each match will consist of 4 games.
a2 The four (4) winners will qualify for the second round of the Candidate Matches.
B Second Round of Matches (4 players)
b1 The Second Round of Matches will start 2 days after the end of the First Round. Any qualified player for the second round of the Candidates Matches can only be replaced by the player he defeated in the first round of the Candidate Matches.
b2 Matches System: The players are ranked according to the results of the first round of the Candidates Matches: winner of match 1 is No.1, winner of match 2 is No.2, winner of match 3 is No.3 and winner of match 4 is No.4. The players are paired the following way: 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Each match will consist of 4 games.
b3 The two (2) winners will qualify for the third round of the Candidate Matches."
Verbal assurances that Aronian would be welcome in Baku are laughable given the genocidal past that Armenians have endured. Just ask Kasparov how welcome he would be in Baku, and why he has not been since he flew his entire family/friends/colleagues to safety after anti-Armenian pogroms.
The point is not interpreting history or selective memory.
FIDE should not encourage racist organizers or keep going to poisoned wells if they are trying to minimize the image they have earned as a corrupt band of characters in bed with failed state leaders.
So Vugg, according to you and acirce, it was OK when Kadaffi won the (fair and transparent) bidding and held a tournament with almost all top players dropping out?
Participants are the part of the tournament, and it is the part of the bid to have a fair and equal playing conditions for everyone. To give you a taste of what is the attitude of official Baku towards Armenians, here you go:
Several years ago, an Armenian officer was killed with an axe in his sleep by an Azeri in NATO exercises in Hungary. He got convicted in sentenced, but became a NATIONAL HERO in Azerbaijan. An axe murder. In the sleep. Both officers.
Suggesting that Aronian could go there and have a nice time is a hypocrisy.
acirce, thanks!
-So if Topalov looses against Anand, he will (probably) meet Kamsky again. History repeats, he-he.
Oh, give it a rest or at least acknowledge the numerous massive crimes committed against Azeris by Armenians equally. Like all ethnic conflicts, it's deeply tragic, but you can't blame this one solely on one side. I fully understand that nationalists are going to take the chance to jump in here and make cheap points. More relevantly to the issue at hand, other Armenian sportsmen have went to Azerbaijan without problems. But it doesn't really matter now since Aronian won't play there anyway so would you please take your beef somewhere else.
"I don't think any organizer did, or could have objected to any of the other locations"
The Azeris won the bidding (being the only bidders) and decide where to hold the event. They want to play in Baku, but Aronian refuses to go there, so the Azeris agree to move half the event outside of Azerbaijan and don't care where, with one exception. It just doesn't make any sense to demand that they should move it to Armenia of all places.
"Apparently, only Azerbaijan but not the co-organizer gets the right to nominate a wildcard. Who could the co-organizer be?"
I'd guess Elista.
"I wouldn't be surprised if this actually happens. Which other spot would then be sacrificed? If it's the second spot from the GP tournaments, we may see Radjabov (or Gashimov) losing their spot"
It would be strange if the Azeris by agreeing to play half the event outside of Azerbaijan also would give away Radjabov's GP spot to the place where they eventually decide to hold the second half of the event. They have already given away the right to host the Candidates final if Aronian reaches it.
I distinctly remember those sportsmen coming back and saying in an interview that the atmosphere was rather hostile towards them. And they were not Aronian, and this is a key point.
War hostilities aside, but making a national hero of an axe murderer? And you are suggesting our top sportsman should have gone there and would have been welcome there?
According to Armenian sources Aronian has not refused to play in Baku, but this is called misinformation spread by Azeri media.
http://armtoday.info/default.asp?Lang=_Ru&NewsID=16441
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Farmtoday.info%2Fdefault.asp%3FLang%3D_Ru%26NewsID%3D16441&sl=ru&tl=en&history_state0=
Who cares. It was entirely reasonable to allow Aronian to play in another country, no disagreement there. And yes, some Azeris have supported unforgivable crimes against Armenians, and vice versa. Saying Safarov became a "national hero" is stretching it, though. But the whole thing is tragic. We all know that.
Oh, well that would change matters. Presumably, if that is true, he doesn't feel that he would be all that unwelcome.
That article is rubbish. Our federation insisting on not holding everything in Baku clearly shows that Levon didn't want to play in Baku.
It's always possible that FIDE never asked Aronian personally if he would refuse to play in Baku, but Gashimov didn't have to play in Armenia's GP event so it's logical if Aronian doesn't have to play in Azerbaijan.
From a historical note, Baku's bid was announced PRECISELY when it was becoming apparent that Aronian would be the likely winner of the Grand Prix. Shameful for FIDE to not pursue 3rd party bids, and instead lazily rely on destructive rather than constructive forces (recall that Baku lobbied FIDE to not count the Stepanakert tournament as official purely for political reasons. Participants included Nakamura, Ivanchuk, Bu, Aronian, Sokolov, etc. None other than Spassky was the honorary guest).
First, the real name of the city is Khankendi (or some variant of this). I also think a tournament organized by the Armenians on occupied Azeri territory shouldn't be officially recognized. And shame on the participants, really.
Stepanakert is not Azeri territory. It has always been ethnically Armenian, thousands of years. It was transferred to Azeris in a Soviet-Era land shuffle. It has never been part of independent Azerbaijan. After the collapse people there declared independence, which was not recognized by Baku who drove armed forced into there. There was a war, Azeris lost it miserably. It is our land historically, ethnically, and we had the guns to prove it.
Back to chess, please.
acirce enough with your inaccurate political propaganda.
You can call the city Oz for all I care and you yourself the Wizard, but the reality is that this is about chess and sport. Take your political beef elsewhere.
The authorities in Baku have proven their intentions through actions: ethnically cleansing Garry Kasparov + several hundred thousand non-desirables, the exalting of cold-blooded murderers like this coward officer Safarov in the NATO program, and now doing their best to torpedo the candidates matches...
Stepanakert is not occupied by anything other than the inhabitants who lived there before there even was an Azerbaijan. No need for modern-day embracing of Stalin's redrawn map, thank you very much.
"we had the guns to prove it.
Back to chess, please."
"this is about chess and sport"
Okay. But first..
"No need for modern-day embracing of Stalin's redrawn map, thank you very much."
But apparently we are to embrace the renaming of the city that was made by the very same Communists in honour of an Armenian Communist during that very same time. Thanks for clearing things up.
Now... 1.e4 or 1.d4 ?
Armenian source confirming that Aronian _did_ refuse to go to Baku:
http://www.aysor.am/en/news/2009/10/19/sport4/
For the last series of candidates matches (Elista 2007), the use of a similarly "old" rating list for determination of pairings resulted in a first round match Aronian-Carlsen - but Carlsen had improved a lot in the meantime so the match was a very close one [eventually won by Aronian].
For the upcoming candidates matches, so far we have [ratings are live ones]
Topalov or Anand (seeded #1)
Carlsen (2801)
Aronian (2786)
Kramnik (2772) [assuming he defends his rating spot]
wildcard (Gashimov 2758 or Radjabov 2748 or Mamedyarov 2719)
2nd qualifier from Grand Prix
World Cup winner
Kamsky (<2700)
It seems like players are rather neatly separated from each other ELO-wise, but this could change in forthcoming events, especially Tal Memorial. Kramnik has to defend his rating spot and he could overtake Aronian. Conversely, Aronian could again overtake Carlsen. In both cases, it would probably require not only a good tournament from the "upwardly mobile" player, but also a relatively bad one by his competitor. After the Tal Memorial, Carlsen and Kramnik still have London to change the ranking order - again this can go both ways.
Concerning other aspects of the discussion only so much: Unlike others, I refuse to take sides in the Armenia-Azerbaijan as well as other conflicts in the Caucasus (e.g. Russia vs. Georgia). I don't know very much about the context - but still enough to assess that it is not a matter of guilty aggressor against innocent victim, rather both sides having blood on their hands.
It is up to people who live there to decide what name they want for their city, for god's sake. And if you keep a Soviet-era name that does not imply you have to accept land shuffles. And if you don't accept land shuffles this does not imply you cannot keep a city name. The name is Stepanakert.
OK, understandable decision from Aronian considering that he apparently doesn't have to play there, it could always have affected him somehow and it will after all be his most important event in years.
PlayJunior, thank you. This is 100% correct statement.
Regarding acirce statement:
"First of all, the issue was of course never about "Jews" but about Israelis."
- a very ignorant statement. Either you are ignorant or just make such statements to support your agenda.
"And yes, I count that alleged statement as a rumour - media can report wrongly (yes, it has actually happened), and they denied that it had ever been made."
- So when they made the statement, the media reported wrongly (yes, it has happened as you say) but all the media reports that this was just a rumor was 100% truth? (let's pick and choose what the media reports as right or wrong?)
"Makropoulos asked the rhetorical question if they should cancel the World Championship due to some rumour that spread over the internet, and for once I agree with him."
- of course you do.
"Of course if it WAS made, their statements and actions meant it was effectively retracted anyway."
- yes, sure it was. After all, they are saints. It is crazy to think that they would have actually meant anything negative toward Jews. How paranoid of these Jews to think such things!
"No doubt the Israelis wouldn't have felt particularly welcome (like Arabs don't in Israel)"
- here your ignorance shows again. More than half of workers in Israel are Arabs, who prefer to work in Israel over nearby places, as they have more rights in Israel than anywhere else. Israel actually provides very favorable conditions to Arabs working there and they feel very welcome. You should travel to Israel some time and see for yourself and not base your entire ignorant world outlook on Reuters.
"and as you say there was other sorts of discrimination. But as for the specific issue I was addressing, they would have been allowed to play, had they chosen to. At least by Libya! Israeli law said otherwise, but maybe they solved that matter.."
- again, ignorance. Now you are an expert on Israeli law. Not only you deny what happened, but you twist it into the other side - now Israeli law is at fault. Those damn Jews, they just cause all the trouble in the world, don't they, acirce?
"It's another thing that Israeli representatives are lucky to be allowed to play anywhere... But I won't go there now."
- yes, I have always known that an anti-semite just can't hold it back. You were just dying to say that, and you just couldn't hold it back anymore. Finally you wrote it for all to see. Feel better now? After all, everyone should know how you feel about these Jews, these Israeli criminals, right acirce?
Leaving politics aside, it is fair and understandable why Aronian does not want to play in Baku. It is equally fair and understandable that Azerbaijan insists that the finals is not staged in Yerevan because one or even two of their players may be participating there. So I don't see a problem, really.
Anyone remember the "Irangate" of Chess? If one of the Israeli chessplayer was qualified for the final, Iran would not host it!
Get chess out of war-zone! I guess that's one of the motivations of Kasparov helping Carlsen.
Why do you think I should or would bother to reply to a confused rant where I am repeatedly and based on no grounds whatsoever being called an ignorant antisemite? Go away and troll somebody else, gnat.
I wonder why the prevoius decision about the length of the matches has "disappeared" and it now is said that the match lengths will be decided later. It would be nice if that could mean longer matches than the four game knockouts that feel too short to even be called matches, especially when they come at the end of a four year long qualification cycle...
Unlike Moro and some other players who showed some ethic behavior, Aronian actually did play in Tripoli. He was quite young then, though, but not 13 or someting like that. He was 22. Now he seems to be more lucky than the Israeli was back in 2004. In an interview, GM N. Short, admitted that is paricipation was rather "practical", since this was probably his last chance to be a champion. Obviously, he was not very proud.
However, I fully support Aronian. I wouldn't have played in Baku either, if I was him.
"yes, I have always known that an anti-semite just can't hold it back."
Hmm. If an anti-semite did "hold it back", how would you know he was an anti-semite?
It's quite a big prize fund for the Canditate matches. Everybody receives €30,000 for show up. Not bad for 4 games, all expenses included. If a player proceeds to the semi-finale he gets totally €60,000.-. The 2 players in the final gets €90,000.- each.
The curious point is if Anand loses to Topalov he might also face Kamsky again in which case also history repeats itself.
Well, I'm certainly glad that FIDE rejected UEP's bid to hold the candidates tournament in Germany on the basis that the FIDE logo wasn't quite given the prominence they wanted... :)
Looks like FIDE always takes Anand for granted.
1. In 2002, Anand was the biggest name player left out of the Prague agreement. That too, for being loyal to FIDE and turning down the Dortmund invitation.
2. When he won Linares in 2007, initially FIDE did not list him as #1.
3. Topalov loses to Kramnik and gets seeded into the candidates final. Kramnik loses at Mexico, but gets directly seeded into the championship match. Anand wins Mexico and beats Kramnik - now if he loses to Topalov, he only gets seeded into the candidates quarter finals (which in all likelihood he anyway qualifies for by rating itself).
4. FIDE cannot even stage the match with Topalov on neutral territory. Topalov may or may not have cheated. But Kamsky was worried enough to have loud music playing all the time - so he is not overheard. The problem is that if someone thinks his opponent is cheating, it spoils his entire game - see Mamedyarov, Topalov himself (against Kramnik), Mig (in 2003) etc. The cheating worry is exacerbated by Danailov's past suspicious actions.
5. At a minimum, Anand should ask for three things:
a. seeding into the final of the candidates if he loses to Topalov
b. draw odds in the match against Topalov
c. neutral territory (If Bulgaria has the money - why not allow them to sponsor the prize fund and stage the match in Turkey or Singapore or London).
Two possibly naïve question, if I may:
What are the prospects of FIDE actually getting a decent leadership?
In the short term, or long term...
And when (if ever) can we look forward to a transparent and predictable process for deciding future World Chess Champions?
My point exactly: If FIDE can arrange a neutral venue for Aronian why can't they arrange a neutral venue for Anand? After all, Anand is world champion. This is considering Danailov's history of unsavory antics.
FIDE strikes yet again (and again, and again...). How many times and for how many years will we have to go thru this sort of thing before everyone finally comes to their senses and DUMPS FIDE?
FIDE bungling has been an issue since it's inception in 1924, 85 years ago. My guess at this point is that we'll never learn...
"Well, I'm certainly glad that FIDE rejected UEP's bid to hold the candidates tournament in Germany on the basis that the FIDE logo wasn't quite given the prominence they wanted..."
He-he. Who cares about playing in a warzone, as long as the logo is on all the pictures!
An Armenian source claims that FIDE has offered Armenia to host the other half of the Candidates:
http://www.aysor.am/en/news/2009/10/19/sport7/
If that is true it could get complicated. As long as only Azerbaijan is involved it is a simple question of their having a nominee according to the rules, regardless where the Aronian half of their event eventually is played. If Armenia will be given half the event as equal "partners" they should of course also have the right to their nominee. FIDE would get short on spots in the Candidates, as Thomas already has suggested...
And there would be another problem: Where would a possible match Aronian-Radjabov take place? In a tent placed on the border between both countries, with each player being seated in his country????
There's also the draw that will have to be "fixed" differently than according to the present rules so the (probably four) Azeri/Armenian participants won't face each other or play in the "wrong" country (and FIDE will have to hope that they are eliminated early so none of all the possible A-A matches will take place).
"And there would be another problem: Where would a possible match Aronian-Radjabov take place?"
May I propose Longyearbyen on Svalbard?
or...FIDE can actually pound the pavement and find a neutral site and be done with the shenanigans. why close the bidding now?
1. Anand- loser of 2010 match
2. Aronian- Grand Prix
3. Radjabov- Grand Prix
4. Carlsen- highest ranked
5. Kamsky- loser of 2009 Challengers match
6. Ivanchuk/Morezovich/Jakovenko/Shirov-winner of the World Cup
7. Organizers-Kramnik?
8. Rating must be Carlsen, since either Topalov or Anand will be WC and the other qualify otherwise
Apologies
1. Anand- loser of 2010 match
2. Aronian- Grand Prix
3. Radjabov- Grand Prix/Organizers
4. Carlsen- highest ranked
5. Kamsky- loser of 2009 Challengers match
6. Ivanchuk/Morezovich/Jakovenko/Shirov-winner of the World Cup
7. Organizers/Grand Prix- Gashimov
8. Gelfand, Kramnik, Leko, or Morezovich- second rank
There would be four Armenian + Azeri participants only if an Armenian (a.g. Akopian) wins the World Cup. But even with three it is getting tricky. Let's assume that Radjabov qualifies via the Grand Prix, and Gashimov gets the organizer wildcard. Let's further assume that the current live ratings don't change until January 2010. Then either Morozevich or Svidler HAS to win the World Cup to avoid any problems, for the first round pairings to look like this:
Topalov/Anand - Kamsky (seated #1-#8)
Carlsen - Radjabov (#2-#7)
Aronian - Svidler/Morozevich (#3-#6)
Kramnik - Gashimov (#4-#5)
Why Svidler or Morozevich? We need a World Cup winner whose rating is bracketed by those of Radjabov and Gashimov - the third candidate Leko doesn't play the World Cup.
"There would be four Armenian + Azeri participants only if an Armenian (a.g. Akopian) wins the World Cup"
If both Azerbaijan and Armenia are given one nominee it will be Aronian (GP) plus Akopian (nominee) for Armenia, Radjabov (very probably GP spot number 2) plus the Azeri nominee. Plus a possible World Cup spot that could be won by an Azeri or Armenian as well.
Where would a possible match Aronian-Radjabov take place?"
I suggest the town called Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwyll-llantysiliogogogoc- in North Wales.
Just wanted to inform that Vladimir Akopian is not participating in the World Cup. Varuzhan Akobian is, and for all purposes he represents the USA.
I think Radjabov, Gashimov, Mamedyarov, Guseinov, Mamedov, Sargissian and Petrosian are the Azeris and Armenians that will participate in the World Cup. The first with decent winning chances, but no one knows exactly what happens if Radjabov/Gashimov wins the World Cup and already have a GP or nominee spot. Maybe #2 in the World Cup gets a Candidates spot in that case.
Thomas wrote:
Topalov/Anand - Kamsky (seated #1-#8)
Carlsen - Radjabov (#2-#7)
Aronian - Svidler/Morozevich (#3-#6)
Kramnik - Gashimov (#4-#5)
Ignoring for a moment the debates about the venue, doesn't that look awesome for a list of potential matches? I would certainly follow all 4.
Anand needs to make sure his room and that of his team members isn't bugged by the Bulgarian secret service/Topalov-Danailov. He needs to ensure this on a daily basis, so that the cleaning staff do not deliberately bug his room. He also needs to ensure that communication over computers with his team isn't subject to interception by hackers employed by the Bulgarian brigade.
He also needs to ensure that his floor doesn't have any other occupants that are likely to create a nuisance.
Playing in Bulgaria increases your overall workload, and occupies your mind with things other than chess. It's just too much headache. Seems like a bad choice to me.
Of course these threats can also exist in other countries, but the likelihood is reduced.
I'm sure nobody thought of that until you mentioned , cool that you posted in both threads so he can see it.
Anand already neutralized the Russians , what can be worst than that?
I don't think he could have neutralized them on russian territory(viz. Elista). VaselineTopLove nice handle you got there!
Anand didn't have to worry about this too much last year. Germany was more or less home ground for him as well as Kramnik. Kramnik is not Topalov and Germany is more civilzed than Bulgaria.
Yea, the germans have written some cool pages in the history of civilization , come back when you know what you are talking about.
What is the problem between Armenia and Azerbaijan? Did someone steal a goat 3,000 years ago?
Quite an interesting piece about Armenian chess. With comment by Aronian, among others,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004j7zg
I'm talking about current world affairs. You're going off-topic dragging 60 year old history in this matter.
Given a choice between Germany and Bulgaria, what do you think Anand would choose and why?
No unnecessary details on the subject from FIDE:
"Half the Candidate Matches have been awarded to Azerbaijan"
http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/4147-anniversary-congress-in-kallithea
Luke,
Both Azerbaijan and Armenia were Soviet Republics. The border between them was defined by Stalin. Arbitrarily, an enclave with significant armenian population was given "autonomous region" status within Azerbaijan territory. When the empire collapsed, the local population decided to join Armenia. Azerbaijan tried to subjugate them by force, but they won a war. There is a ceasefire in place, but there is no permanent agreement between the two countries.
So, it's a lot more serious then stealing a goat 3000 years ago. It is a very sensitive issue for both nations. Thousands of human beings have died, tens of thousands have had to flee their homes, on both sides.
As far as chess is concerned, both countries have produced strong chess players and that is likely to continue. When these players meet on international (neutral) ground, they just play chess and respect professional traditions.
However, it is practically impossible that a player from one of these countries could feel comfortable participating in an event taking place in the other country.
Good post Guru ;)
We should stick to chess .
One side wanted to host a tournament in their country . One player refused to participate in that country .
The hosting side agreed that their event could be partly hosted somewhere else providing it is not in the country of the player who refused to play in their country . :D
Am i right or wrong ? If i'm right then who is to blame ? . Well that's not important . What's important from a chess point of view , is that the tournament get hosted and that that all players scheduled to particpate will be part of it . :)
Thanks for the explanation, guru. Too bad they can't get along.
Anon,
Since I was not on the spot it's hard for me to judge if you are right or wrong on what actually happened at the FIDE Congress.
Let me try an alternative version, just as an exercise:
Azerbaijan wanted to host the tournament. This allows Azerbaijan to nominate a player who may not qualify otherwise. As a side effect, it creates an uneasy situation for Aronian or any other armenian player who may qualify.
FIDE split the tournament in two parts and awarded Azerbaijan the first half of the tournament. This is actually a diplomatic way out, but now, FIDE must look for another country to host the other half.
This would mean that FIDE may have to award the second host country the right to nominate a player as well.
Too many nominees for my taste.
I'd prefer a tournament where all players would have fought over the chess board to earn the right to participate.
By the original definition: the World Cup winner and Aronian (as Grand Prix winner) would decide the next WC challenger.
Both would have earned their right over the chess board!
Wouldn't that be fair?
I agree the "one spot for a nominee" is unfair. It's reasonable for one or two of 128 spots in the World Cup, but not for one of only 8 spots in the Candidates.
But still, it's a golden opportunity to get a country's player into the Candidates. Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Israel, China, Spain... all of them are countries with a world class player who will now probably sit out the Candidates. Why didn't they bid?
Peter,
That's exactly the point I am trying to make.
Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Israel, China, Spain and many other countries have world class players. These world class players are either participating in the Grand Prix or will participate in the World Cup. If some of them chose not to participate in either tournament, it was their decision. If some fantastic player, say, Ivanchuk, does not succeed in becoming a candidate to be the challenger, tough luck. Try harder next time.
The original system was designed to have a large number of participants, from as many countries as possible. Two possible candidates would emerge: one from the Grand Prix and the other from the World Cup. Meritocracy would rule.
The only special case can be made for the losing side of the Anand/Topalov match, since that player was denied to participate in the cycle. That would have been easy to solve: he could be a third candidate. Three candidates to chose one challenger.
I am against all nominations. We are talking about deciding the World Champion. It's the throne of Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov and other chess giants for heaven's sake.
What would it be like if Iceland (with all due respect) were given the right to nominate a candidate to face Fischer in order to chose Spassky's challenger?
Candidates to becoming a challenger to the World Champion should earn such right over the board, not by nomination.
Actually Anand and Topalov could have participated in the GP if they wanted to. See http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/twic697.html and scroll down to "FIDE Grand Prix Events".
I don't have a problem with a couple of spots in an 8 player candidates reserved for the top rated players (though it was farce for this to be announced partway through the Grand Prix), but I agree that "special nominee" clause is very unfair. The lineup for the candidates is actually looking pretty good, it's a shame one player might be there who hasn't really earned it.
(It's also a shame the matches will be so short, but that's another story).
I see no problem with allowing a nominee -- as long as the majority of the spots are by qualification.
The purpose of qualification is precisely so that all players (theoretically) have a chance to get IN the cycle.
The purpose is not to lock any players OUT.
In the old (bad) days, players could be locked OUT if they couldn't raise the challenge money.
Nimzowitsch, Rubinstein, Maroczy and others couldn't raise the cold hard cash -- they were locked OUT.
Today, nobody is locked OUT (unless their federation does the locking out).
So....if the organizing nation adds a player -- even a player who previously was eliminated -- that doesn't lock anyone OUT. It adds players back IN.
And if the organizing nation picks an undeserving or obviously weaker player -- then they get scorn. And the higher-rateds should still prevail in the end. And if they don't prevail, that is sport.
I might remind folks that Fischer did not qualify for his 70-72 run...and it took rule-bending to get him in. That's a great example of allowing qualified candidates IN...rather than using "qualification rules" to lock them OUT.
In case some people don't know: the organizer wildcard still has to have a minimum rating of 2700. This could still provide a spot for "obviously weaker players": if, for example, Germany or the Netherlands had bidded for the event, they could have asked for a spot for Naiditsch or Tiviakov provided they make it (barely) above 2700. Details (which rating list applies?) are unknown, and might be subject to negotiations.
I would still consider those wildcards less ridiculous than Al-Modiakhi or Pelletier in the FIDE Grand Prix [before the respective organizers dropped out]. Anyway, as it isn't easy to find organizers, you have to offer them something in return?
Naiditsch was exactly 2700 on one official list. Tiviakov was >2700 for 1 1/2 months (19/2 - 4/5) on the live rating list. In an interview at the time, he said that "of course" this gives him the right to ask for substantially higher appearance fees ... .
"Details (which rating list applies?) are unknown, and might be subject to negotiations."
January 2010 according to the current regulations.
Thanks, I missed this - or rather: didn't bother to look at the regulations.
I still think or speculate that there might be some flexibility in case of need: What if England had bidded for the event to get a spot for Nigel Short, and he then plays badly at the London supertournament to fall just below 2700 in the January 2010 list?
Of course one could then argue that he doesn't deserve his spot (also debatable if he would with his current 2706), another things is to make and keep organizers happy.
It won't happen anyway, but just like Kamsky Short would be an interesting name "for historical reasons"!!?
I still think that nominating a player just because his/her country is organizing a tournament is not fair to other players who have earned the spot on the board.
All relevant players were allowed IN either through the Grand Prix or the World Cup. Nobody was locked OUT.
Each player had TWO chances to qualify. Those who may have been eliminated in the Grand Prix still had a second chance through the World Cup.
Adding a couple more from the top of the rating list is already rule-bending, still is more acceptable then having a nominee(s) of the organizing country(ies).
Otherwise, what's the point in having the long and arduous qualification cycle? Just pick the top eight by rating or nominate the candidates of the highest bidders.
Do not underestimate to dificulties to raise the necessary €€€ for these events.
FIDE has no money. On the contrary, FIDE is living from it's % cut of the price money.
A wildcard nominee is probably necessary to have any tournament at all. Eventually the players can play for (much) smaller amounts. But then a lot of super GMs will say goodby to a profesional chess career.
In the end, a nominated player from the organizer is a small prize to pay. If he is not strong enough,he's out after 4 games anyway.
I wonder whether a Bulgarian IOU is worth more than a Californian IOU...
This message board actually reinforces my views concerning the double standards against the Azeris and the nature of the "hostility" between Armenians and Azeris.
Among posters in this thread, we have seen no Azeris making any negative remarks towards Armenians. However, as soon as an article involving Azerbaijan appears on this blog (an mind you, the article above contains lots of unconfirmed information and even some insinuations), we immediately see how the Armenians (example: playjunior and the other guy with a ridiculous name) see it as an opportunity to disseminate another portion of hate speech and racist remarks, hurl insults at Azeri players, and make ridiculously false historic claims. And all this on a chess site, of all places.
Really, it happens every single time.
Probably because they are muslims . Quite a lot of islamophobia these days . Some people would take position against them even without really knowing the problem .
Then there is the Armenian presence in the western countries which make it easier for westerners to know about the Armenian version . Very few Azeris in the western world , and almost no influent Azeris in medias or politics as opposed to Armenians .
Mostly agreed though I actually think your second reason is more important than the first. But islamophobia certainly runs rampant these days, and reasonably speaking it's probably an aspect here.
acirce, you are right! There is certainly an inordinate amount of Islamophobia in the West these days... E.g., out of general fear of Islamofascists and in an act of supreme intellectual cowardice, Yale University Press decided to delete some political cartoons from a book in part about how fanatical religious thugs intimidate people from exercising their rights to free speech. This type of cowering Islamophobia is "running rampant these days."
*sigh*
Vugg -
Strange of you to cry foul. This is not about Armenians hurling insults. It is an Azeri "journalist" that is being quoted about the anti-Armenian racist stance of the Baku bid for the candidates match. It was Radjabov who embarrassed himself last year with a racist diatribe against Armenians, something to the tune of "yeah we hate them all." It is the Baku organizers who have created the discomfort, and as soon as it was apparent that Aronian was to qualify.
Pls do not blame the victim or hide behind some world conspiracy or islamophobia.
There is no place for racist invective in chess, and it is sad to see FIDE agree to bids from countries who proudly flaunt hate.
Folks who are gung-ho about Armenia's annexation of Nagarno-Karabakh should be aware that the same logic will apply if Russia invades Ukraine to liberate the Crimea.
How about a championship between Radjabov/Aronian for who controls both countries? Decide it over the board! Have a funny feeling that Aronian would crush Radjabov...
Bobby,
Of course, you are right about nominated players from organizers being a small prize to pay to raise the necessary $$$
My objection is limited to this particular case, where amongst only 8 players we may find one (or even two, God forbid) nominees. As Peter mentioned earlier, conceding a wildcard for a 128 player tournament is not the same as for an 8 player tournament.
Specially, when that tournament is meant to chose the WC challenger.
FIDE has been successful in organizing tournaments without having to give out a wildcard. The campionships in Mexico City and San Luis come to mind. Neither Mexico nor Argentina had a "country nominee".
The more important issue you raise is about the financial viability of a professional chess career.
The key is to amplify western markets and to massify chess education (scholastic). Carlsen's raise could perhaps be a catalist.
The umbilational way in which Thomas relays this throbinic information reminds me of a certain rhomboid bulgency. I think that the bolibulous necessity for a quincitric bovine solution is quite apparent. Although I disagree with the premise that acirce asserts that the procculent corposcule be prominent for all to see. Only certain threpulating men should be able to volicate this obscure data.
I conclude that the ecobantric sebulant query that is rather malformed be reconstructed in a mormrinthinal fashion.
Excellent points, and particularly the conclusion. I hope you can clear up other issues for us.
I wrote before that I am neutral in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, be it only because I simply don't know enough to choose one side. I agree with Mig that chess and politics DO mix, at least in this current thread - thus here political statements can be "tolerated" in a chess blog.
That being said, I don't understand Vugg's comment, and even less the follow-up by xy and acirce. Opinions seem to be roughly divided between pro-Azeri and pro-Armenian, I do not see a campaign against Azerbaijan. For most posters, I don't know where they are from: playjunior is Armenian (and entitled to his opinion), Mig (critical of Azerbaijan) is American, acirce (leaning towards the Azeri side) is Swedish. As far as Mig is concerned, he may be influenced by Kasparov - could anyone blame him for not being completely neutral but being influenced by first-hand stories of a personal friend? But where is the evidence for islamophobia in western countries?
And as far as chess players are concerned, "ashamed to be a chess fan" mentioned Radjabov's statements; I am not aware of anything comparable by Aronian or other Armenian GMs. Radjabov later came up with an, in my opinion, not really convincing semi-excuse, see the story @
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4245
whata shmuck vugg. nobody is throwing insults at azeris, just pointing out azeri racism towards all things armenian, that's all, and don't you start as who is engaged in historical revisionism. it is because of you and people thinking exactly like you that azerbaijan should be renamed to paranoia without borders
" But where is the evidence for islamophobia in western countries?"
Either you are very stupid or very blind.
@thank god not vugg: I was right , people ends up insulting the citizens instead of their governments .
I'm from a western country. We're not islamophobes. I dislike being labelled.
Me too , but is a sad reality .
Not here.
"Folks who are gung-ho about Armenia's annexation of Nagarno-Karabakh should be aware that the same logic will apply if Russia invades Ukraine to liberate the Crimea"
Yeah, that's about as likely as US invading Canada to liberate Toronto.
Im not sure were you live but i bet that at least one of your neighboring countries has participated in actions against the islam.
Where are you from cat?
Ireland. I would like to see some hard facts and statistics on this rampant Islamophobia in western Europe, with comparable data on attitudes towards non-Muslims from Muslim countries, before half a continent is branded as racist.
I think i won that bet. ;)
To be fair, Radjabov was probably misquoted. And as much as one would like to blame the Azeri organizers here (and it is certainly dumb of them to do what they did), Aronian didn't help his case by saying he refuses to play in Azerbaijan, anyway. As for the whole Nagorno-Karabakh issue, IMO, no one is right (or wrong) in this. Armenia is certainly not blameless, and they've done their share of dumb things, for example the way they took advantage of the Eurovision Song Contest last year to rub it in to the Azerbaijanis comes to mind. I really wish the whole Armenia/Azerbaijan thing stopped. I don't mind it if chess players hate one another, but if they do it for nationalistic reasons, it is retarded.
>"But where is the evidence for islamophobia in western countries?"
Either you are very stupid or very blind.<
I do not consider myself stupid (well, who would?) and I just got new contact lenses ... .
Seriously, my rhetoric question referred (only!) to the ongoing discussion here. And even if some posters (may have) had islamophobic motives [and are from western countries], there is no hard evidence: criticizing the Azeri government and/or chess federation isn't per se islamophobic - just like criticizing the Israeli government isn't antisemitic, or criticizing the US government isn't anti-American.
At the most, you could - with lots of bad will - infer islamophobic motives in Mig's criticism of the 2004 WCh in Libya. For a personal (obviously subjective) open letter by Swiss-Israeli GM Vadim Milov at the time see
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2566
He mentions support by (among others) Gelfand, Topalov, Shirov, Karpov, Anand and Ivanchuk. Are all of these players islamophobic??
¨At the most, you could - with lots of bad will - infer islamophobic motives in Mig's criticism of the 2004 WCh in Libya¨
I wont , that is retarded please stop with the broken logic.
You said that there is no evidence of islamophobia in western countries , i call you stupid because there is plenty .
That´s all.
And I definitely agree the islamophobia is often a reason for anti-Azeri feelings. Which shouldn't be the case, really. But if a nation adhering to an ugly, disgusting and militant middle-eastern religion were a valid reason to hate them, then Armenia (or Russia, or other largely Christian places ) would deserve as much bad karma as Azerbaijan does.
Back to the chess...
guru: chesspride's argument has won me over somewhat. So 7 players qualify, and one "weaker" player who gets special entry as an organiser's nominee. In a series of matches, all this is really doing is giving the top seeded player an easy first round match. There is more of an issue in a round robin tournament - when the weaker players can influence the result - but in a series of matches there should be no impact on the final result.
Everyone else still had the chance to qualify for other the 7 places (well 5 actually because 2 are reserved for losers of the last cycle) so they can't really complain. If they really were a title threat they would qualify for one of those 5 places, as Aronian has and Carlsen surely will.
Oh .. funny and sad .. wonder what Garry Kasparov would tell us about this. He must have some strange memories (strange for many of readers of this post) about how his family fled from pogroms in Azerbaidjan in late 1980s. Those pogroms where against Armenians. Oh yes ... have to stress - that was well before the "part of Azerbadjan" was occupied by Armenian chess players and not only.
Guess Vladimir Hakobian (also born in Baku) could give details...
this is to the attention of "Acirce".
And this is only to bring one of the facettes of the story. For others - sorry for the issue that is not related to chess.
Unlike you, I would only discuss issues such as islamophobia if they are at least remotely related to the thread under discussion - so I looked for some evidence, and Libya seemed to be the best but still very questionable case. For me, just throwing in the word islamophobia (as xtra did, and acirce agreed) does not count and does not help.
I will now wander around a bit and eventually address what I consider the most ridiculous comment in this thread - Manu Oct19 4:23PM [Luke's remark about a goat being stolen 3,000 years ago is a good runner-up]. In a related case, Armenia(ns) vs. Turkey, islamophobia might play a certain role in people taking sides. For lack of knowledge I won't argue just how many people were killed just after World War I and if the term genocide is justified. But I dare to say that, in this case, Armenians were at least more victims than aggressors. Wikipedia is not necessarily neutral in such controversial issues, I will still quote one sentence to link it to the current thread: "The Republic of Turkey (as well as modern Azerbaijan[4]) does not accept that the Ottoman authorities attempted to exterminate the Armenian people."
Indeed, modern official Turkey is still denying this dark page of the country's history - to the extent that people expressing dissenting Turkish opinions are legally prosecuted. Compare this with Germany where at most a few people would deny the Holocaust (and THEY may be legally prosecuted). Post-World War II, I could even rather blame Argentina and other South American countries for providing safe havens to Nazi criminals ... .
This is not personally against Manu, just like I don't accept any personal responsibility for whatever my grandparents or their generation might have done - the same would and should apply to German chess organizers as Carsten Hensel and Hans-Walter Schmitt.
Generally, if any country with dark sides in their history was excluded from organizing chess events, how many would be left? Many European countries cannot be proud of their colonial past - here Germany was, in retrospect, lucky to lose its colonies after World War I. Even Iceland would no longer be "innocent" if certain aspects of the financial crisis enter the picture.
And I can only speculate about Manu's motives: Kramnik has/had a German manager, Germany succeeded in organizing a WCh free of controversies [it certainly helped to have the right players competing], let's now attack Germany for what happened more than 60 years ago (because I don't have any targets in more recent history or contemporary politics). Planet Manu indeed ... .
Echoing Manu here. You need to stop fighting straw men.
You have a point ... I managed to simply ignore Manu's comment for quite some time (it helped that VaselineTopLove came up with a concise refutation!). Being German, eventually I couldn't resist the temptation of countering nonsense with arguments - I wonder if Manu will bother to reply, but I don't expect anything constructive.
Your life is easier - I don't see how you could ever be attacked for being Swedish ,:)
areg, please do not comment on the things you don't know and don't fall for silly propaganda.
if anyone, then it is Kasparov who should blame his mother's kin for what happened to him. He was loved in Baku, he was backed by Azerbaijanis contrary to Moscow's wishes at the time when the Soviet government clearly supported Karpov. Without Azerbaijan's support, Kasparov would never be what he is today. He was given the best possible conditions in Baku from his early childhood. And he left Azerbaijan with the help of his Azerbaijani friends, quite safely I must say. The fact that he now forgot all that and turned his back to his friends is not their problem.
And as for pogroms, yes - it took place a little before the war, but after hundreds of thousands of Azeris were forced out of Armenia. And they all came where? Right, to Sumgait and Baku (where pogroms took place), very angry at what happened to them. Unlike you, I have done some reading on this issue.
Why am I even doing this - there is really no point to sink to the level of this guy and some others who posted silly stuff here.
I am not saying that any of the sides is right or wrong "in general". The background and history of the tragic conflict is very complex. And as much as Armenians/Azeris like to pretend they are the only victims and Azeris/Armenians the villains, it's simply not true outside of their respective nationalist myths.
However, today, it's a simple fact that Armenia is in the wrong. They have no business occupying big chunks of Azeri territory. It only perpetuates the conflict and fuels tensions. If sectarian ethnic clashes flare up again, it will be mostly Armenia's responsibility. There is a possibility to solve the conflict peacefully, but Armenia is the main obstacle.
I think you may have misunderstood me: note the specific post I was replying to. Anyway, I get your point so let's leave that. But I for once was never talking about Westerners in these threads specifically being driven by islamophobia.
Regarding that lengthier post, defending yourself and Germany - that is all good. But there is one thing were I'm not sure I'm following you. You don't know if the term "genocide" is justified but you are blaming Turkey for denying it was an attempt at extermination?
" I wonder if Manu will bother to reply"
I won't , your post is very accurate , you caught me .
"Unlike you [referring to areg], I have done some reading on this issue."
I agree that reading cannot hurt ... but getting an unbiased view would require a lot of reading from many sources AND being able to assess which ones are objective and reliable. I do not see how anyone from inside or outside the Caucasus region would be up to the task, I certainly don't claim that I am.
I questioned Wikipedia before in this context, but still consider it more reliable than Azeri or Armenian sources - after all, both sides can contribute their views, and at least the facts should be reliable (here I trust the inherent self-correcting abilities of Wiki).
So just one more Wiki quote: "As many as one thousand Afghan mujahideen participated in the fighting on Azerbaijan's side.[58] There were also fighters from Chechnya fighting on the side of Azerbaijan.[58]" Reference [58] is "de Waal, Thomas (2003). Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. New York: New York University Press."
So which side brought religious aspects into the ethnic conflict?
If I misunderstood you, it was due to the little word "here" in the post I criticized - I assumed that 'here' refers to discussions in this thread.
Generally speaking, we mostly agree on chessic issues, so we might as well disagree on political stuff. Or rather: [repeating myself] I don't dare to have a clear opinion. So I wouldn't come up with statements as "today, it's a simple fact that Armenia is in the wrong ... Armenia is the main obstacle". If Armenia retreated from the Nagorno-Karabakh area tomorrow handing it [back] to Azerbaijan, what might happen next to the Armenian population there?
May I ask you a) what your sources are, b) if you could possibly be biased, for example having Azeri friends? This is clear enough for Mig - as far as other posters are concerned (e.g. Vugg and areg) I have no idea concerning their background.
Concerning the Turkey-Armenia issue, you have a point - maybe it's also a misunderstanding or rather a shortcut from my side: What I had in mind were official Turkish statements that
- there were crimes by Armenians against Turkish on a similar scale, and
- it has to be seen in the context of World War I, as if there is no such thing as war crimes.
IMO, one injustice can maybe explain, but not justify another one (this also goes to Vugg's latest post).
Btw, de Waal's book was recently recommended to me by a friend of mine from Azerbaijan (who sympathizes very strongly with the Azerbaijani cause in the conflict). He called it the best book ever on the conflict, and most reviews I've seen agree with his assessment that it is a very balanced and just account. Although naturally, many Azeris tend to think it is biased in favour of Armenia, and vice versa. But I have not yet read it myself.
"May I ask you a) what your sources are, b) if you could possibly be biased, for example having Azeri friends?"
As with most big issues, I don't have any particular "sources". It's actually a pretty odd thing to ask. It's not like you can go to some encyclopedia, turn to page 373, and find out. Obviously, I have to make an assessment based on my total understanding and knowledge about the situation, how I think it compares to other situations, what I think I know about such kinds of conflicts in general, and so on.
As for being biased, we are all biased, and there is nothing wrong about that. I talk to both Azerbaijanis and Armenians on the internet, but I wouldn't call many of them "friends".
"Concerning the Turkey-Armenia issue, you have a point - maybe it's also a misunderstanding or rather a shortcut from my side: What I had in mind were official Turkish statements that
- there were crimes by Armenians against Turkish on a similar scale, and
- it has to be seen in the context of World War I, as if there is no such thing as war crimes."
My own view is something not that far away from what you describe. I don't think it's constructive to discuss forever whether the "events of 1915" should be called genocide -- but I do think the context is important, and that this is rarely considered in the Armenian narrative or by sympathizers of their cause. Nobody denies that there were big crimes committed against the Armenians, but saying this alone does not contribute to an appropriate understanding of the events if you're ignoring the context.
You can debate history as much as you would like, but this is taking the focus off the racist, anti-Armenian proclamations from Azerbaijan today.
The Armenian Genocide is a well-documented historical fact. Attempting to muddy the waters with revisionist history won't change that.
And as far as the blame game, the point here is that FIDE should not kowtow to destructive bids. After all, chess suffers. Denying bids or participation of players based on ethnicity or religion is not in the spirit of chess or sport, or anything that FIDE _should_ stand for. Shame on teh Azeri chess federation, and a call to FIDE to find a more palatable bid.
BTW, Turkey and Armenia just start normalizing their relationships "after a century of hostility" - establish diplomatic ties, reopen their border:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299712.stm [Oct.10 2009]
The BBC report mentions that "[t]he administration of President Barack Obama had been pressing the parties to reach agreement". It doesn't mention that football might have played a role: Turkey and Armenia happened to be in the same world cup qualifying group, and managed to play two matches - one in each country - without major incidents and with the heads of state accomapnying their teams.
Maybe sports can help - even though an earlier football match Turkey-Switzerland turned out to be problematic (to say the least). If Armenia and Azerbaijan had been in the same group, they probably had to meet on neutral ground ... .
Another reply regarding Kasparov leaving Baku: The following facts stand:
- Kasparov had to leave the country. Even if he was "loved" before, it suddenly mattered - changing the situation - that he is partly ethnic Armenian.
- Azerbaijanis (some of them) helped Kasparov, but not other Armenians in Baku - who also didn't have the money for a helicopter to escape "quite safely".
An anecdote from another ethnic conflict: In my childhood, I had a Croatian piano teacher. She didn't understand ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia becoming ex-Yugoslavia: "I was studying in Belgrade, I had many friends from Serbia and other parts of the country, ethnics were never an issue." She also had a Serbian husband, but a few months later they were divorced - as rumors went (I grew up in a small village ...) for political reasons.
Bottom line: past relationships (friendship or even love) offer no guarantees!?
Peter: I disagree.
Again, this tournament will chose the WC challenger. It is not "just another tournament".
All relevant players are given two chances, either win the Grand Prix series or win the World Cup.
If a significant player, say Ivanchuk, fails to qualify through the Grand Prix or World Cup, his country nominates him by organizing the tournament.
That's what I think is unfair to the others who qualified over the board. Because, the nominee player is not a "weaker" one. He is a viable candidate who was already eliminated by the winners of the Grand Prix and World Cup.
Let's imagine for a moment that Radjabov fails to qualify through the Grand Prix or the World Cup. The fact that he could become Azerbaijan's nominee is totally unfair. It's direct qualification to the last phase of the cycle, of a player who was eliminated in the previous phase.
It's just like, say, South Africa being eliminated from the first round of the World Cup (football), but, being the organizing country, suddenly being nominated to dispute the semi-finals.
Just in case, if one would argue that South Africa, being a "weaker" team might lose in the semi-finals anyway, try to transpose my example to the next World Cup: Brazil gets eliminated in one of the earlier phases, but, being the organizing country, directly qualifies to the semi-finals.
I vote for absolute fairness. Even high-rated players and the previous cycle losers must earn their qualification over the board.
Some facts from Makropoulos:
"The only particular demand of the Azerbaijan Chess Federation was to have at least one Azeri player to play in the Baku group. The request was very logical and was accepted by FIDE. The whole agreement was made in good faith with the Azerbaijan Chess Federation which is also one of the most active federations worldwide in hosting top events.
The Armenian Chess Federation was also asked to submit a proposal to organise half or whole the event but it was impossible for their budget. In all cases, the Armenian Chess Federation has received FIDE’s assurance that all Armenian qualifiers will have their rights protected.
There is no co-organiser appointed yet. The right for a wild card has been agreed to go to Azerbaijan as it covers about 60% of the total cost of prize fund, FIDE contribution and stipends (338,000 euros out of a total of 540,000 euros)."
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/candidates-half-in-azerbaijan-half-somewhere-else/
Interesting ... : if the main, or at least a major motivation for the Azeri bid was to get a wildcard - now they get one with a 40% discount on the organizing fees !!?
"The right for a wild card has been agreed to go to Azerbaijan as it covers about 60%"
So, now the FIDE begging process starts.. "Can you please organize the other half of the tournament, with only 40% liability (actually a little more if you assume the organizational costs are the same - only the prize money is lesser). btw, you don't get any nominees since the only nominee has been granted to the other guy who pays 50% more. Thank you!"
Seriously, what was wrong with the UEP bid, where none of these problems would've surfaced?
I wouldn't be surprised if FIDE creates another "org nominee" and made the nominee directly fight with the candidates winner.
Note: I have nothing against Azer who got a sweet deal, and why woudn't they grab it, as they seem to be able to afford. And I don't care if Kramnik made it or not to the cycle (thru UEP or otherwise).
I'd guess FIDE count on having to pay the remaining costs and organise the other half in Elista (the Candidates matches in 2007 were all played there and mainly paid by Kirsan, if I recall correctly), since no other organisers were interested this time. The Azeris still have to pay 338,000 Euros for one spot so it isn't all that cheap. Hard to imagine that any other organiser will be interested in paying 200,000 Euros without even getting a Candidates spot for it. Of course plenty of time for FIDE to change the rules and postpone things even more, the Candidates will take place more than a year from now.
"Seriously, what was wrong with the UEP bid"
The size of the FIDE logo !!!!! There are more important things in life (or chess politics) than the current confusion and chaos ... .
>> The size of the FIDE logo !!!!!
yep, and that was an (irreconcilable) matter of principle! as FIDE saw it!
Long live FIDE!! Our great game is in safe hands!
@pb, if FIDE ends up shelling out the remaining from their pocket, what would be the "net" from this cycle for FIDE financially? That would be brilliant move, wouldn't it?
With FIDE all guesses and predictions are meaningless, they will always come up with something unexpected... UEP were prepared to pay 650,000 Euros for a Candidates spot, by the way (now the price apparently is down to 338,000):
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5206
I still speculate about some sort of deal with Turkey or Singapore. After all, both countries did FIDE a favor by retracting their bids for the Anand-Topalov match: accordingly, it could be claimed that the Bulgarian bid was the only (remaining) one.
And both countries wouldn't, or couldn't claim a wildcard anyway.
@Thomas, well, as far as wildcard, is there really a condition that the nominee has to be from the same country/federation of the organizer? that certainly wouldn't be the case if UEP nominated Kramnik. btw, does the wildcard stipulation really prevent an organizer from "selling" the spot openly (i.e. if they don't have a preferred candidate that they would be willing to nominate for free)?
You are right, the rules only mention a player nominated by the organizer (and rated >2700), not necessarily from the organizing country. BTW, the UEP bid (see link by pb above) actually said that "in principle the organisation of the events could take place anywhere in the world" - followed by 'we will first talk to our partners who contributed to the success in Bonn'.
So it may be more correct to suggest that Turkey or Singapore might not insist on a wildcard for lack of qualified/suitable players. However, Turkey did nominate a wildcard for the FIDE Women GP: WIM Betul Cemre Yildiz (yes, a titled player ,:) ), 150 points lower rated than the rest of the field, scoring 2/11 in Istanbul and 1/11 in Nanjing.
Selling the wildcard spot: Lol, this reminds me of a quote from Nigel Short during Corus 2009: "I am not interested in playing Corus A next year - if I qualify I will sell my spot on the Internet". He finished second in the B tournament, was invited anyway for next year's top group, and apparently accepted after all.
Another option: if a co-organizer is willing and able to provide more than 50% of the total budget, could he buy the wildcard spot from Azerbaijan? Would Azerbaijan be interested, if Radjabov qualifies in the meantime (via World Cup or FIDE GP)?
I would rule out only one option - UEP organizing the event after all: too much a matter of principles and pride, for both sides ... .
Okay, no chess in this post, but no one should sit still for acirce's comments:
"I don't think it's constructive to discuss forever whether the "events of 1915" should be called genocide"
Agreed, since it was a genocide, the first of the 20th century and a useful point of departure for both international jurists and aspiring genocidaires in the decades following. In fact, the lawyer/scholar who coined the term "genocide" felt the neologism was necessary to better express Turkey's well-organized and bureaucratic attempt to extirpate the Armenian population. So not only was it a genocide -- the term was coined on the very basis of the "events of 1915".
"...but I do think the context is important, and that this is rarely considered in the Armenian narrative or by sympathizers of their cause."
Since you know nothing of the "narrative" (cute choice of words, along with "sympathizers", to attenuate the issue and dismiss the affected parties), it may be helpful to point out that context is indeed well-considered in the historical record, both during and after WWI: the Turkish government continued slaughtering Armenians until 1923, well afield of the war's conclusion and therefore exempt from predictable and gutless "cover of war" arguments. Going a step further, the articles of genocide as defined and set out in the Geneva Conventions were violated regularly by Turkish government in the decades since, evidenced by their imprisonment of journalists for the crime of writing on the genocide, their employment of negationist historians to publish false "official" accounts, and their binding state policy of denial and concurrent refusal to take part in anything resembling a "truth and reconciliation" process. Therefore it can be argued from a legal perspective that the genocide did not officially end. But in any case, the recent Armenian-Turkish negotiations, while historically significant and about time, were nonetheless hastily undertaken by a Turkey desperate for EU membership.
"Nobody denies that there were big crimes committed against the Armenians"
Actually a lot of people deny it. Including, in your own special darling way, you.
I'm quite sick of all these Azeri-Armenian squabbles all over chess sites and all the propaganda that goes with it. It's clear that there was a war and both sides have enough reasons to hate each other.
What I don't get, is Mig's position on this current affair. It seems to me that FIDE and Azeri's organizers came up with a reasonable compromise.
For starters, Azeri's are the only official organizers so far and they are paying for the event.
1. Would it be better if Aronian is forced to play in Azerbaijan? That would be very uncomfortable in the first place for Aronian himself. Great that organizers and FIDE make for Aronian allowance to play elsewhere.
2. If the other hosting party is Armenia, an Azeri player would have to go there to play Aronian. Clearly not acceptable for Azeri organizers. Therefore excluding Armenia from the possible host country is the only way to make this arrangement work.
Completely undeserved criticism of FIDE and organizers here.
@clubfoot u really nailed with the ¨genocide¨ explanation , that´s got to be embarrassing.
@Thomas : i was a little busy to answer your estupidity , but i read it again and it contains some irritating acusations that only you could come up with:
You said : ¨Unlike you, I would only discuss issues such as islamophobia if they are at least remotely related to the thread under discussion ¨
What? You are always willing to discuss anything with anyone about any topic ,the reason is not my problem but my guess is that writting deprives people of turning their backs at you the way they do in real life.
And in doing that you come up with gems like:
"But where is the evidence for islamophobia in western countries?" which originated this situation.
You said :¨I will now wander around a bit and eventually address what I consider the most ridiculous comment in this thread - Manu Oct19 4:23PM.... This is not personally against Manu, just like I don't accept any personal responsibility for whatever my grandparents or their generation might have done - the same would and should apply to German chess organizers as Carsten Hensel and Hans-Walter Schmitt.¨
The post you are referring to is this:
¨Yea, the germans have written some cool pages in the history of civilization , come back when you know what you are talking about.¨
Which answers the claim of VaselineToplove about Germany being ¨more civilized¨ than Bulgaria , which is just a ridiculous statement to make in itself regardless of the countries involved.
My answer just points the fact that the ¨more civilized country¨ tried to conquer the world a few times performing genocide on several races ...
Why is that you don´t want to take blame for that is beyond my understanding because nobody acused you of anything..., in fact is in this very thread that i wrote :
¨Politic is designed to filter out good people and keep the most despicable elements of every society , which of course then procede to abuse of their faculties and declare war , invade , steal , etc.¨
Not satisfied with all this unfounded acusations you procede to write:
¨And I can only speculate about Manu's motives: Kramnik has/had a German manager, Germany succeeded in organizing a WCh free of controversies [it certainly helped to have the right players competing], let's now attack Germany for what happened more than 60 years ago (because I don't have any targets in more recent history or contemporary politics). Planet Manu indeed ... .¨
Well , i don´t have much to say about this ..
What i find more insulting is not the unfounded and delirious acusation per se , but the plan is so dumb and pathetic in itself that can only mirror the mind of its creator...
Since this thread is more about hate than anything else, i shouldn´t say this but for what is worth : sorry about the interruption.
@Manu: Wow, I managed to get a long post out of you, normally you specialize in provocative one-liners. Another gem is "Anand already neutralized the Russians , what can be worst than that?". So it is also new that you apologize for hate statements.
Repeating myself: Generally I consider all statements as on-topic, unless they are obviously and/or admittedly off-topic. Political issues between Armenia and Azerbaijan are by definition and unavoidably part of the current thread; the connection to islamophobia in western countries is at best stretchy or tenuous.
I concede that VaselineToplove's statement was provocative, arguably ridiculous - but it has to be seen in the context of the discussion. He was certainly aware of dark pages in German history, the latest (major) ones more than 60 years ago - as you also know but ignore for the sake of argument? Compare this with _recent_ accusations by Borisov against large parts of the Bulgarian population (Turkish and Sinti-Roma minorities) ... less impact, but arguably approaching "the language of Hitler".
Finally, on your statement that you proudly repeat: "Politic is designed to filter out good people and keep the most despicable elements of every society , which of course then procede to abuse of their faculties and declare war , invade , steal , etc."
At least this is unduly general. I will come up with two lists - both deliberately alphabetic. Of course the lists are incomplete, some names may be debatable, and there is no ranking implied at all:
It may apply to Ahmadinejad, Borisov, Bush sr. and jr., Chavez, Hitler, Nixon, Putin and Stalin.
Does it also apply to Clinton, Gorbachov, Kasparov, Kennedy, Mandela and Obama? All of those may have some dark sides to their personalities, but are they really "the most despicable elements of [their] societ[ies]"?
¨Another gem is "Anand already neutralized the Russians , what can be worst than that?". So it is also new that you apologize for hate statements.¨
No soft-headed, that phrase only implies that Anand already faced the huge espionage capacities of the Russians and wont enter the match without the proper precautions.
About the rest :
You should apologyze for your acusations instead of unloading another ton of crap to cover them .
I accused you of writing nonsense, and xy of introducing islamophobia into the discussion. Once again, it exists in western countries, but I haven't seen any evidence here on this forum (at least regarding this ongoing thread). What I have seen is false political correctness: anyone leaning towards the Armenian side may be, or must be islamophobic. I disagree. So both of my accusations stand, no need and no reason for excuses.
You accused entire countries, both Germany and Russia. The first is you only (and not justified by attacks against Bulgaria), the second may come from reading Chessdom without being critical.
Regarding your latest post on "huge espionage capacities of the Russians". Actually, computers play an important role in cheating attempts. Unlike Russia (to the best of my knowledge) India is nowadays a world leader in this field, and Anand is sponsored by a major IT company. I am not, not at all making any insinuations - beyond the plausible and legal possibility that Anand had superior hardware at his disposal for match preparation. But - if such accusations against India and Anand are ridiculous - why do accusations against Russia and Kramnik make perfect sense on planet Manu and his sister planet Chessdom?
BTW, I preferred your previous reply ("I won't , your post is very accurate , you caught me .") - for a few hours I took your words for granted. Apparently you were sarcastic ... I agree with an earlier remark (I think by mishanp) that you make much more sense when you try to be sarcastic.
" I accused you of writing nonsense, and xy of introducing islamophobia into the discussion."
You were talking about islamophobia before than i ...
" You accused entire countries, both Germany and Russia."
Of what?
" why do accusations against Russia and Kramnik make perfect sense on planet Manu and his sister planet Chessdom?"
What makes me more uncomfortable about this is your lack of integrity , no matter how many times you are proven wrong , you keep accusing me of new things on every new post.
I don't know how to deal with this , on one hand i consider you a handicapped person capable of embarrassing his own relatives without even noticing it , on the other you keep throwing one serious accusation after another...
Im sorry i got mad at you , i pity you , please stop this nonsense.
Good. It's all over now. No more squabbling about Armenia and Azerbaijan. It's back to the 100 years war between Manu and Thomas.
Feels good to help.
I am really sorry Vugg and others supporting VUGG
But I wlll still try approach to the "high" level of your historical knowledge about the ARM/AZERI conflict.. in order to help you understand (i quote) .WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT...
First of all by rejecting what I have suggested as a question to ask you managed to approve my point .. Explain me (without sinking to the level of discussion about Kasparov's family affairs) why would ever those honest Azerbaidjanies HAD to help Kasparovs family (soviet citizens by then) to leave their homeland, and leave those loving countrymen ... It’s not a propaganda just a question out of your statement.
Propoganda? VUGG I did invite you to ask those questions to G. Kasparov (or his mother) only to get more or less objective knowledge about your own history… moreover that you seem to be overwhelmed with respect upon the EX WORLD CHAMPION.
Sumgait
You are suggesting that 100s thousands of Azeries where forced to make a trip from Armenia … directly to Sumgait??? (over 950 kilometers) without stopping on their way in Armenian districts of , Stepanakert?? or Kirovabad to perpetuate their revenge? ok… what is the name of the book that you want me to read. Who is the author Professors Mamedov? Aliev? Gashimov? or Herodotus?
And one more thing
In some cases one doesn’t have to read books to believe in what he sees. Its like e2e4
I’ve been myself in the airport of Yerevan helping the refugees, beaten women and men arriving by plane from, Turkmenistan (people had to flee first on boats to the other side of Caspian sea) How’s that? Because there was no other way or secure airport around in azerbadjian to help them out… I bring this in as a witness.
After all, VUGG, I don’t hate Azeri’s and you must be able to understand why.
Areg, thanks for clarifying your background. On one side, direct first-hand experiences make your arguments credible. On the other hand, they might make it more difficult to be completely neutral and unbiased, but who would be (see below)?
It may be worthwhile pointing out that Kasparov became a victim of pogroms - albeit a "privileged one" - despite changing his name from Kasparyan to Kasparov. That could be intepreted as an attempt to hide his Armenian ancestry, assimilate in Azerbaijan, whatever ... . And keeping his father's Jewish name Weinstein may have been similarly problematic?
On "who could be neutral?": Maybe independent historians as Thomas de Waal [not me, another Thomas ,:)], who - presumably unlike anyone posting here - have the time to check many sources AND the (academic) background to assess or guess their reliability. Maybe UN observers, have there ever been any in the conflict? I guess both would or did conclude that there were atrocities committed by both sides.
Looks like I was wrong. The Armenian - Azerbaijan squabbles are continuing, thanks to Thomas.
Great show. Sit back and enjoy.
Irresistible Verbosity v. Immovable Snarkiness.
LOL Greg.
"Maybe UN observers...would or did conclude that there were atrocities committed by both sides."
UN observers! Ha-ha! You are right. They certainly would find both exactly equally at fault in everything.
Ref: Armenian/Azeri conflict
If we ask how and why did the conflict start we may be able to understand it better. That would lead to an impartial (rather then neutral) opinion.
The root cause of the conflict is the decision made in 1923 by Josef Stalin (at the time he was the “People’s Commissar for Nationalities”) that awarded Karabakh, with its predominantly Armenian population, to Soviet Azerbaijan’s administration (as an “autonomous region”).
This act created a conflict that stayed frozen for 65 years before resurfacing again in 1988. Armenians always refused to recognize Stalin’s decision and continued to protest its legality even during the Soviet rule. The objection of Armenians is based on their claim that Azerbaijani administration of the region sought to change the ethnic structure of its population.
In early 1988, encouraged by Gorbachev’s glasnost, Karabakh’s local parliament (the Regional Soviet) voted in favor of uniting the region with Armenia. A referendum was held and an official request was made to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, justifying it on the principle of the self-determination of a people (a right granted by the Soviet Constitution).
The Armenian view was that they were simply asking for the correction of a historical error, by peaceful methods. Meanwhile, the Azeri view was that the territorial integrity of their country was being questioned.
The request was refused by Gorbachev. Redrawing borders between Azerbaijan and Armenia would set a precedent and trigger other frozen conflicts to surface elsewhere in the USSR. Gorbachev’s refusal set in motion the subsequent events with their violent and tragic episodes.
Thanks guru, but this may still not be the whole story. Stalin's decision was preceded by (and a reaction to?) the 1918-1920 Armenia-Azerbaijan war over Karabakh and other disputed territories. According to the Wikipedia article on Nagorno-Karabakh, it may have been influenced by "wider geopolitical considerations":
"Needing to placate Turkey, the Soviet Union agreed to a division under which Zangezur would fall under the control of Armenia, while Karabakh and Nakhchivan would be under the control of Azerbaijan. Had Turkey not been an issue, Stalin would likely have left Karabakh under Armenian control.[56]" [56] is Service, Robert. Stalin: A Biography. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006 p. 204.
In any case, I wouldn't blame Gorbachev, not even Stalin for their decisions (those particular ones!) - in the sense that opposite decisions would have had the same eventual consequences? The general strategy may have been (cf. also Yugoslavia and Tito): As long as there is a strong central government, ethnic conflicts are not an issue - or rather: they _temporarily_ remain under control and under the surface. In Gorbachev's case, loosening the grip of the central government (while generally a right and timely decision?) sadly was at the origin of many ethnic conflicts coming to the surface.
Ha-Ha (but actually there is nothing to laugh about): You are probably right, the UN rarely takes sides in such conflicts. This is due to its internal structure based on consensus, and one veto power can block any consensus.
But in the given situation, would a verdict (I propose an oddly balanced one) really help? Such as: "Armenia was responsible for 52% of total casualties, but 55% of all refugees are Armenians."
Another issue is (I checked in the meantime): There were never any UN observers in the given conflict. They could only intervene if both sides agree on the mission - implying their willingness to resolve the conflict and, in chess terms, accept some sort of draw.
@Luke (and +- Bartleby): There is one battle or show I am actually looking forward to - Armenia and Azerbaijan are likely to meet at the chess boards (both men's and women's sections) during the European Team Championship.
What I am not looking forward to are live comments such as: "Radjabov played a stupid move, Sargissian should know better than entering time trouble, Akopian should have resigned ten moves earlier, ... [cannot come up with a fourth one to make the statement balanced]." But here my reaction would just be shoulder-shrug and sigh - and most likely I will keep it for myself ... .
Thomas,
Of course one may go as far as the 2nd century BC to tell this story. That was not my objective.
I maintain the view that the current conflict, the one which started in 1988, has its root cause in Stalin's 1923 decision to put Karabakh under Azerbaijan's administrative control. Otherwise the local inhabitants would not have had any reason to ask for a border change.
I have not questioned whether Stalin made the right or wrong decision, or why did he end up deciding that way. I also don't question Gorbachev's reaction, he was in zugzwang anyway.
My aim was to gather objective and factual information that could explain why and how the conflict started (or re-started, if you say so).
Armenia and Azerbaijan are strong chess countries and the conflict between them is part of today's chess scene, whether we want it or not. We'd rather try to understand it and derive impartial conclusions.
Fair enough, guru. It is also my understanding that the current conflict wouldn't exist if Stalin had made a different decision in 1923. Whether Azerbaijan (or certain Azeris, e.g. those living in Karabakh) would have accepted a different decision by Gorbachev is already another story: they might have questioned the referendum which was boycotted by the Azeri part of the population ... .
Anyway, this doesn't solve the current conflict. Noone from outside (neither Moscow nor New York - United Nations) could enforce a solution. And I doubt if "resignation" by Armenia would help: this (retreating their troops) is what acirce more or less suggests, at least Armenians would interpret it that way. But a simple fact is: hatred leads to war, war leads to more hate which continues to exist even after the war is over. Enough on this - we certainly won't find a solution on a chess blog!
BTW, we will have to wait for the fight on the chessboards, at least in the men's section, because Armenia lost against organizer Serbia today - one Aronian is not enough. Bulgaria also lost again because one Topalov isn't enough: Cheparinov lost with black in 20 moves against McShane's offbeat Sicilian; Delchev lost in one move because his mobile phone rang.
That is, mildly speaking, a very desputable interpretation of the 1923 "decision" by Stalin. Firstly, you apparently do not know that it wasn't a decision by Stalin alone, but it doesn't really matter. Secondly, another interpretation, which is almost never mentioned by the protagonists of the "Stalins' decision" theory of territorial claims, is the Azerbaijani opinion that the same "decision by Stalin" placed the regions of Zangezur and Geycha (about half of modern-day Armenian territory) under Armenian administrative control. And those regions at that time were predominantly populated by Azeris and were larger than Nagorno-Karabakh. In fact, if you take the entire territory of modern-day Armenia, there were more Azeris living there than Armenians in the beginning of the last century, according to the numerous Russian official census and estimates. So this "Karabakh was predominantly Armenian-populated but bad Stalin gave it to Azerbaijan" line of thinking actually backfires against the Armenians.
Stalin:
I did not interpret Josef Stalin's 1923 decision about Karabakh either way. I just established the fact that it is the root cause of the current conflict between Azeris and Armenians.
There is a subtle difference between Zangezur being an integral part of Soviet Armenia's territory and Karabakh being an "autonomous region" under Soviet Azerbaijan's administration. Soviet Armenia owned Zangezur, while Soviet Azerbaijan was the custodian and administrator of Karabakh.
I am not sure I follow your logic. Is there a claim by Azerbaijan that the entire territory of modern-day Armenia be united with Azerbaijan because there was a majority Azeri population at the beginning if last century?
At the beginning of last century the whole region was part of the Russian Empire and there were no independent Azeri or Armenian states to claim anything.
In 1923, however, there were two sovietized republics with respective population majorities within their (disputed) borders.
Bah, Russia should just re-invade all these ex-Soviet republics. Think how tidy the map will look then!