USCF Endorses Karpov

I'll second Mig's endorsement. I'm afraid that Anatoly Karpov's candidacy will go the way of so many that preceeded his however. The "third-world" stranglehold and corruption that pervades FIDE is just too great. Plus, the Russian Chess Federation wouldn't back Karpov immediately, if at all; not a good omen I feel.

According to: http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/4432-fide-elections-2010.html

"Mr Karpov has stated that he has the support of France, Switzerland, Germany and Spain. The four Continental Presidents of Africa, Americas, Asia and Europe have confirmed that they will support Kirsan Ilyumzhinov for a new term."

Nice logo, Mig.

If Karpov is elected, he won't have a chess state to pay for chess tournaments (I doubt we will have Elistas with Karpov on the helm).

On the other hand, if he truly cleanses whatever the current regime has done, I hope sponsors (and perhaps donors) will be flocking in.

I didn't get the alien connection. What's that all about?

I didn't get the alien connection. What's that all about?

No aliens!

d_tal:

Our enlightened Kirsan has claimed to have been abducted.

No really!

Every religious person believes bizarre fantasies, so why so hard on Kirsan?

What's crazier, alien abduction or transubstantiation?

Just a reminder: Kirsan was not abducted by aliens, he went with them on his own will...

Kirsan will be reelected we all know that.

It's a sad day for chess when the 2 candidates are Kirsan and Anatoly.

I thought the rule was that the candidate had to be nominated by their home federation. I know theres an exception to it by something like a vote of the General Assembly, but I cant really see it panning out. Surely the choice for Karpov is which Federation to switch allegience to?

Also you might consider joining the 'Change FIDE - Chess players supporting Karpov for FIDE President' group on Facebook.

Karpov has shown himself a man of no principle.

OTOH, he probably won't be any worse than Illumwhateverhisnameovich.

Why can't we have someone normal for FIDE president - like MIG? I nominate MIG for FIDE president.

A non-profit organization needs someone trustworthy, of character, who won't do the non-stop intrigue these ex-Soviets will inevitably engage in. Karpov is such an intriguer, a "man of broken-word" (he's someone who will reliably break his word as it suits him.) For the FIDE organization, that means rules will continue to change on whim under Karpov.

Damn aliens, why can't they leave chess alone? This explains a lot of the weird people I've met in chess over the years, those lousy extra-terrestrials have performed sick biological experiments.
I warned you about Carlsen being from Jupiter long ago.

The only thing most of us care about is a system which selects the best WCC candidate and whose rules don't change mid-cycle... and Karpov would have to be better than Kirsan in that regard.

But how has Karpov ever demonstrated a commitment to cleaning house, professionalizing the sport and actually listening to the federations and players?

If his 2001 Botvinnik Memorial "performance" is any indication, Karpov would quit the FIDE presidency the day after his election if a better opportunity presented itself.

In any case, Karpov has no chance against Kirsan's bulging pockets and is challenging for the presidency because that's what people who enjoy reading about themselves in the paper like to do.

I do kinda wonder the political backgrounder on this not heart-felt endorsement... I'm not gonna ask since it's obviously non-public info.

Working on the visible:

- Mig doesn't do political endorsements.
- He's aware a blog's effect is rather limited for political purposes.
- He wouldn't usually endorse - rather stay aclear - a flawed candidate such as Karpov.

So the primary hypothesis is, a deal between the Kasparov and Karpov camps has been cut... and one of the two Bigs, either K12 or K13 hinted at an endorsement.

I believe Mig is sufficiently independent-minded to endorse whoever he felt was best, outside of "The Boss'" opinions. It would be interesting to know Kasparov's opinion.

I am not (ex)Soviet or American, and I do not think either group is generally corrupt.

But I can see that Americans view (ex)Soviets as corrupt, and with just as much justification, (ex)Soviets view Americans as corrupt.

Americans do have a sanctimonious self-image, but its mostly to do with the fact that the average traffic cop is rich enough not to succumb to a $10 bribe. The amount needed is greater, not the innate honesty of the official.

Karpov for president, great, exacty what we need , more Russians controling the game , more intrigues and privileges and dictatorship no serious brand would sponsor...
I don´t know if the ride is a flying soucer or sleigh but embrace yourselves cos hell is where we are going.

Ilyumzhinov is the future Karpov is the past.

Ilyumzhinov should be elected lifetime president of chess since he has improved event play so well during his reign so far. What has Karpov done for chess nothing but allow Kasparov to beat him and then Kasparov broke away from chess organization and failed with PCA.

Karpov has proven he is not a guardian of chess in this case and thus is not trustworthy of protecting chess from young upstarts who will break the chess world into bits.

Ilyumzhinov has proven he is very capable with the reunification of chess and protecting it for our children.

Think of our children and vote for Kirsan.

¨protecting chess from young upstarts who will break the chess world into bits. ¨

¨Think of our children and vote for Kirsan.¨

From your statements i´m just not sure if Kirsan is in favour or against our children , remember that ¨young upstarts¨ usually have fathers too.

Some advantages to Karpov.
He is incorruptible, the man's a multi-billionaire.
He is attuned to the needs and concerns of chess players, and he believes in moving chess back onto the world stage again -- that might help a bit with the public, which wonders where all the chess players have gone.

He'd also make a solid effort to ensure that there's a predictable and unchanging way of deciding the world crown of chess - he's made that one of the central elements in his program.

That said - the world of chess is a pissy pool of petty prattlers, and chances that his or any other candidate's election to the post would change that are slim. So don't hold your breath.

"those who earn billions usually are prone to crime in one way or another. "
Give me the billions and I'll prove you wrong!

When did Karpov become a billionaire, and how, considering he was playing chess virtually f/t into the late 1990s?

Just 10 to 12 years to make 1,000,000,000 dollars is pretty good.

I don't need billions to prove anything.. just a million or 2 would do ;)

Hold your nose and vote Karpov!

[quote]commitment to ...bringing chess back to the world stage...[unquote]
I'm not sure about that, but I'm almost positive Karpov is committed to bringing that chair back to the world championship stage!! See the linked pic.

http://www.chessninja.com/images/karpovchair-1997.jpg

Karpov is the sole owner of Petromir, which has found a ridiculously large gas field.

43 trillion cubic feet of gas ...
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=409

Karpov has clearly stated that he is dissatisfied with the unpredictability of the championship process and that he feels this should be revised.
“It is necessary to restore order,” Karpov was quoted. “The problems with the World Championship, the calendar, changes of decisions, changes during a cycle, this didn’t happen before. Besides, the prestige of the World Champion should return to its old level.”

Chess doesn't belong in FIDEstan. Kasparov has stated that important chess matches used to be arranged in world cities, with considerable attention from the media and public, and that this should be reinstated. At least the two old adversaries agree on that.

I knew his stamp collection was overvalued!

Oh ... absolutely. Gas isn't worth much until someone pays for it, but let's all for a moment enjoy the prospect that there could be a chess player out there, a world champion, whose life won't end in abject poverty in a cold room in a basement apartment.

There's quite a game being played in the area where that gas is located. BP is developing the Kovytka field and Shell the Sakhalin-2 field. Petromir's find is quite close to BP's. BP would like to sell its gas to China, but they're all having problems with Gazprom, which has a monopoly on export licenses. Gazprom is creating difficulties for everyone not part of Gazprom, if you want.
The gas will come out, and Mr. Karpov, as the owner of the field, will have been made a very wealthy man long before any gas has been sold through a pipeline, as investors have already bought into the project.

Now you know a bit more of the story. It's quite a game there, requiring very subtle positional moves.

Uh, no offense, but how did Karpov get into gas exploration?

My inclination is to believe this acquisition involves Karpov's political connections somehow, that he's fronting for someone.

Since I'm 100% certain Karpov lacks expertise in gas field exploration, etc., etc., we may surmise he probably has very, very high-level connections to either: 1) the owners of BP Shell, or 2) the Kremlin.

It'd have to be *the highest level* for him to be entrusted with a whole gas field deeded in his own name.

We are awaiting the latest on the Karpov saga-is there something in the pipeline?

Another plausible possibility is:
- Karpov was successful playing chess and earned considerable money with it (but not "billions")
- He invested the money in the oil and gas industry
- He was also successful in this second career
So far there is nothing illegal, unless anyone can _prove_ that corruption, dubious political connections etc. played a role. And while Manu may well be right that billionaires are "prone to crime", that's not the same as (all of them) being criminal.

Other aspects of the ongoing discussion can be summarized under "he is ex-Soviet/Russian, nuff said"- but IMO that's a very gross simplification. And of course anyone can condemn the oil and gas industry as a whole - but only those who do all their travelling by bike, on foot or using solar energy may really have the right to do so.

BTW, I think "owners" or top management of Shell, BP, Gazprom ... also don't have geoscientists' knowledge about oil and gas exploration, but hire people who do. Obviously early predictions on just how promising a newly discovered field is can turn out to be wrong, not only in Russia. [Says a geologist who had some industrial training in the oil and gas industry but then didn't end up in that field]

@Thomas
Your hypothesis may be true, but is less likely to be true than mine.

Hard evidence? Why should he need that?
"Is there a link with the Anand-Topalov match? The threat to interfer with the match (in Bulgaria, Danailov involved in the match organization) is stronger or as strong as its execution?"
and yet
"one has to be _certain_ to come up with such accusations or insinuations. "

Consistency, pls.

Andy, I'll pay you for lessons.

Plead granted. Your inconsistency is completely innocent.

Never mind the US Chess Federation. The next President of FIDE will be decided by Putin, no less. Putin is the spider controlling both Kirsan and the Russian Chess Federation.
The President of the Russian Chess Federation, Mr Alexander Zhukov, happens to be the Vice-Premier of the Russian Government. He is one of the faithful men of Putin’s regime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Zhukov

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov is a string puppet of Kremlin, depending on Putin’s nomination to keep presidency of Kalmykia. http://newsfromrussia.com/main/2005/10/19/65653.html

If, and that’s a big IF, The Russian Chess Federation nominates Karpov, then Kirsan is lost. He dare not go against the will of Putin & Co, unless he wants to return to his former profession as a car salesman.

Kremlin is probably happy with Kirsan. I guess Karpov has to promise to spend quite some of his gas fortune in order to be chosen by the Russian Chess Federation.

Kalmykia's history is a sad one - the place has been exploited terribly and was savaged during the years of Stalin, because of the deportation he imposed on them as punishment.

They're a subsistence level economy, with some agriculture (though totally dependent upon irrigation due to the arid terrain), livestock reflecting their heritage and some negligible oil production.

They shouldn't be spending their money on their Dear Leader's chess infatuation - and chess players worldwide should resist FIDE's willingness to take money from the Kalmyk's to finance chess.
But hey - we have a tournament to go to, right?

The New Yorker's fact checking department is legendary, they do not print untruths. To understand the state of FIDEstan, I direct you to this article:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/24/060424fa_fact4

There are a lot of things in the New Yorker article that are scandalous, and it reflects badly upon FIDE and chess players, to be associated with what is going on in Kalmykia.

Shortly before Chess City was completed, there was an incident described in the article as follows:
"
In a republic where people are lucky to earn fifty dollars a month, the project has generated more resentment than revenue. Ilyumzhinov had hoped that the Olympiad, in 1998, would put a spotlight on his domain. It did, but not exactly in the way that he had wanted. On June 8th, just a few months before the participants were scheduled to arrive in Elista, the body of a journalist, Larisa Yudina, was found in a local pond; she had been stabbed repeatedly. Yudina was the editor of Soviet Kalmykia Today, the only opposition newspaper in the region. Ilyumzhinov had banned the paper, so Yudina printed it in neighboring Volgograd and then distributed copies from the trunk of her car. She had often accused the government of corruption, embezzlement, and other crimes, and was investigating the finances of Chess City when she was killed.

Moscow officials, showing little confidence in the local police, took over the investigation, and soon arrested two men: both were former aides to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, both confessed to the murder, and both were convicted."

Not long afterwards, Kirsan was reelected as president of FIDE -- and now he's set for another reelection.

I am not your biggest fan, but that "No Aliens" sign is hilarious !

@noyb

Yes, of course - nobody's perfect. But it's possible to try. How about a fact checking dept that sends people to actually check descriptions of locales, goes through historical records and absolutely refuses to include references that have not been triple-checked? That's the New Yorker. Der Speigel actually has a larger fact checking dept, but the sixteen working on the New Yorker's are legendary for their accuracy and perspicacity.

So why don't you find what's wrong in the article? (I actually looked up the year Steinitz became world champion, which is mentioned. Yup, it's correct :-)
You can be pretty certain that what you read in Planet Kirsan is true (notice how at one point the writer mentions the age of a girl playing chess, and makes reference to an older man being unable to remember how old he was ... they ask.)

They even check poems!
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/25/opinion/l-at-the-new-yorker-they-take-their-fact-checking-seriously-931593.html?pagewanted=1

They did write "loud" instead of "hard" in one of their articles.
http://www.splicetoday.com/writing/just-the-facts-at-the-new-yorker

And the fact checking dept would have corrected Der Speigel to Der Spiegel in the above.

Cheers!

"It seems that you just disagree with others on how far Topailov might go ... ."
Precisely.

Something directly related to this thread: The German chess federation has officially nominated Karpov - mentioned on their homepage and pointed out by German Chessbase. "This is possible according to FIDE statutes, because since 1994 Karpov is a member of Schachvereinigung 1930 Hockenheim [a German club] and thus of the German federation."

If I understand correctly:
- Other federations (e.g. the USCF) can support Karpov, but the German one has the right to nominate him.
- Karpov no longer depends on the Russian federation, which in turn doesn't have to choose between him and Ilyumzhinov.

Nothing has changed since the last two FIDE elections -- except that:

Iilyumzhinov has a pretty good record -- he has put tens of millions of dollars into chess, unified the world title, provided for a stable calendar of chess events and kept FIDE from bankruptcy (think back to 1996 and how bad things were when Ilyumzhinov had to finance the Karpov-Kamsky match himself).

Karpov -- other than being a fantastic chess player -- has no such record of organization management.

Everyone bitches and moans about Ilyumzhinov...but he rescued FIDE in 1996.

There are no sponsors waiting to "pour millions of dollars" into chess event. That is a red herring.

USCF again misses an opportunity to help itself by supporting the Ilyuzhinov regime.

By supporting the opposition (Karpov) -- USCF is almost certain to be locked out when the opposition loses.

Look, in 1996...with its own player in a title match...USCF was too poor to host the match.

USCF was all-too-happy to support Kasparov's 1993 PCA title grab. Then (surprise) it acts shocked when FIDE doesn't grant it the kind of influence it wants (as if supporting traitorous breakaways should be forgiven easily).

FIDE had to fight for SURVIVAL in 1996. It had to run a title match after forfeiting Kasparov and Short. It had to fund the Kamsky-Karpov match. It had to find a way to keep the title cycles going.

Ilyumzhinov provided the funding and the stability for that kind of survival. It is not a stretch to call him the Churchill of chess.

Maybe the time will come when chess can grow beyond him -- but this is not the time and Karpov is not the candidate. If B. Kok couldn't win, why does USCF think Karpov can win?

Bad plan. Bad strategy. Bad outcome.

So there's no chance you'd endorse Dennis Kucinich if he throws his hat into the ring, Mig?

Chesspride might take pride in this bit of statistical legerdemain, then. From the report by Ilyumzhinov to Putin, 2009:

Since the previous year was very challenging due to the downturn, our main task was ensuring that people receive their salaries. In early 2009 unpaid wages amounted to some 50 mln roubles, but, thanks to the coordinated efforts of government agencies, local authorities and the regional government...

Yesterday the Federal Service for State Statistics published its latest findings, and unpaid wages have fallen to zero in Kalmykia. We made all the necessary payments, and there will be no unpaid wages in the future.

Vladimir Putin : Are you referring to both salaries that come out of the government budget and jobs in the wider economy?

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov: Yes, both government-paid salaries and jobs in the wider economy, and at all state-owned and privately owned enterprises.

===

See! Overnight, the issue of unpaid wages simply disappeared. It's a miracle!
You write that Ilyumzhinov has put tens of millions of dollars into chess - and while he keeps claiming that "it's my own money" - the world of chess should get set for some pretty rough blowback the day another ruler takes a look at how the nation's finances have been managed. "Chess federations worldwide conspired to pillage a developing nation" is a pretty ugly headline.

http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-conditions-growth/13765687-1.html

Let's take some Chesspride in the fact that during the Womens' Championship in 2004, a hunger strike was staged by opponents of Ilyumzhinov, who protested that the nation's funds were being used in this manner while the people were starving.
70% unemployment will do that to you.

Does it feed our chesspride to read headlines such as this one in The Guardian: The Man who bought Chess.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/oct/29/chess.features
"Quite where Ilyumzhinov's spending ends and where Kalmykia's begins is a matter of bitter debate."

Semyon Ateyev is pretty clear in his opinion of Kirsan. He's the director of the Kalmykia Bureau of Human Rights: “He’s a pathological liar with serious psychological problems. We don’t have any economic development, because he spends his whole time organising chess tournaments.”
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1631

The world of chess will look very crappy when this s**t hits the fan.

Let's take some Chesspride in the fact that during the Womens' Championship in 2004, a hunger strike was staged by opponents of Ilyumzhinov, who protested that the nation's funds were being used in this manner while the people were starving.
70% unemployment will do that to you.

Does it feed our chesspride to read headlines such as this one in The Guardian: The Man who bought Chess.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/oct/29/chess.features
"Quite where Ilyumzhinov's spending ends and where Kalmykia's begins is a matter of bitter debate."

Semyon Ateyev is pretty clear in his opinion of Kirsan. He's the director of the Kalmykia Bureau of Human Rights: “He’s a pathological liar with serious psychological problems. We don’t have any economic development, because he spends his whole time organising chess tournaments.”
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1631

The world of chess will look very sad when this hits the fan, as it will.

I see that the quote attributed to Semyon Ateyev was conflated by The New Humanist, which I linked to in the post above. Here is the original statement, in an article by The Independent. It's not any better:

The approval is not unanimous. "He's a pathological liar with serious psychological problems," said Semyon Ateyev, the director of the Kalmykia Bureau of Human Rights. "After 14 years of his rule, we're still one of the poorest regions of Russia. We have a Minister of Economic Development, who's also in charge of organising chess tournaments. We don't have any economic development, because he spends his whole time organising chess tournaments."

The New Humanist makes it appear that it is Ilyumzhinov who spends his whole time organizing tournaments, when the original quote shows it is the Minister of (nonexistent) Economic Development.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/bishops-buddhism-and-brutality-inside-the-bizarre-world-of-kalmykia-458608.html

Why is it that elections seem to always turn out another "lesser of two evils"??

Seems like normal, sound-minded people rarely run for office anymore (if ever.)

In other news... they're holding the President's Cup Azerbaijan v The World rapid event again this year in Baku, on the 29 April - 3 May. http://www.extratime.az/article.php?aid=13083

Kramnik, Kamsky, Polgar and Sutovsky represent the world.

Azerbaijan will be Radjabov, Mamedyarov + two others to be decided soon.

I am generally a big Karpov fan, and the only reservation I have about Karpov is his attitude towards the KO "world championships": Karpov didn't mind claiming that winning them counted as an actual world title. Basically, I'd be an even bigger Karpov fan had he not claimed any post 1985 chess world titles.

Unless Karpov is against the match as the format for the world championship competition, I support his candidacy.

Those who think Kasparov is somehow superior to Karpov in terms of character need to just think of their respective reigns: Karpov took over during one of the most difficut times for the Wc title ever: as the previous title holder refused to defend. Karpov made the best of it and by the time he stopped playing WC matches, chess was at the peak of its popularity and sponsor interest. Now let's take a look at the Kasparov reign: he took over at one of the highest points in chess history, with 5 matches with Karpov raising the level of the game and spectator interest to the level that is perhaps the highest they ever been - and by the time he was done, the chess world turned into a miserable farce with division, strife, lack of sponsors, bitter top level GMs, etc - and Kasparov should get most of the blame since he is responsible for the split and many of the changes.

Say what you will about their playing styles (I, for one, prefer Karpov's) but while Kasparov has been a huge destructive force in the chess world, Karpov has been a creative and constructive one. Karpov has been playing for the title aganst three of the biggest jerks in the history of the game in Fischer, Korchnoi and Kasparov, and he managed to be civil, and behave with dignity even with all their antics. Karpov's rivalries have been politicized by many (not him) and many in the West wanted to see him lose - first in 1975, and then, almost by transferrence, against Korchnoi and Kasparov, but when one forgets about politics, it is hard to miss the fact that in all those rivalries Karpov was the the only party that was sportsmanlike and decent. Some of this historic and irrational Karpov hatred has spilled over into some common myths like the idea Karpov worked behind the scenes to cancel the 1985 match. While Karpov has refuted that a long time ago by publishing documents that point it was Kasparov who wanted to cancel the match, while Karpov was the one who wanted it to continue (which makes sense, since he was winning, and him losing a couplle of games wasn't even as bad as his streak of the Bagio match vs. Korchnoi that he also won) - I don't think it made much difference in the West, because many people there seem to want to hate on Karpov and they won't let the facts get in the way of that. Anyway, in my personal opinion, it would be hard not to root for Karpov against the three sociopaths/jerks he had to deal with in his WC career.

I guess it is ironic that it is the Western countries that support Karpov's bid the most now.

Anyway, like I wrote above, unless Karpov will want to bring back KOs, it is hard to think of a better candidate than him.

I'm sure that both Bessel Kok and Karpov are good candidates, and that there are others who would also do a fine job.

A more important issue is to what extent chess players worldwide, as well as the image of the game, are served by a continued association with Ilyumzhinov. It's not a pretty story, and it's not getting better.

The mayor of Elista challenged for the post of prime minister not that long ago, stating that he was envisioning a division of powers, where the president would take care of matters politics, but would have to abdicate his influence over the governing of Kalmykia. This was an attempt at trying to institute something that looks like an actual government of Kalmykia, as the place is now completely at the mercy of Ilyumzhinov's whims.

What happened? The mayor was immediately the target of a number of accusations of improper actions, corruption, etc. Most of which were easily swatted away and all of which were orchestrated by the Ilyumzhinov machine. The mayor has been serially arrested, charged, released, prosecuted on trumped up charges - the continual harassment being a given for anyone daring to challenge Dear Leader's absolute sway over Kalmykia.

Do chess players worldwide want to be a part of this? Because we are, by association. The nation of Kalmykia is presently having important funds and resources diverted from development into placating FIDE-federations and subsidizing the game. Do we really want to be a part of that?

Are we comfortable with the fact that the mayor of Elista is denied hospital treatment in Kalmykia?
http://abhazia.eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/7996/
That false charges are brought against Mayor Burulov, claiming he is planning to flee Kalmykia, rather than face "justice"?
http://kalmykia.eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/12792/
Do we find it objectionable that funds collected to aid the victims of the war in South-Ossetia were diverted to a rock festival?
http://www.eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/11181/
That militia officers from Kalmykia kidnap people and sell them into slavery?
http://www.eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/10211/
That a lawyer defending an ex-senator of Kalmykia is suddenly charged as a criminal?
http://www.eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/10205/
That people who complain about unpaid salaries to the press are suddenly being visited by authorities informing them that "they shouldn't dishonor Kalmykia by making their complaints public."
http://www.eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/8760/

Kalmykia is ranked last among Russian regions in revenue per capita. Should they be funding worldwide chess?

That opposition newspapers must be printed outside the nation?
http://www.eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/7412/

To follow the orchestrated campaign against mayor Burulov, start at item 40 here and work your way towards today:
http://www.eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/search?context=article&pg=4®ion_id=34

Why is Burulov being persecuted (and I have no idea whether he has a closet full of skeletons himself), but why is he being persecuted?
http://www.eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/search?context=article&pg=4®ion_id=34

Mayor of Elista Radiy Burulov has offered himself to local members of the "Edinaya Rossiya" Party as a candidate to the post of Kalmykia's Premier. Mr Burulov said that he would like to share the power in the republic among the Prime Minister and the President and offered the latter to deal exclusively with political matters and not to interfere with operation of the government.

You forgot to include this little quote >

" We faced the most serious problems when dealing with the private employers, who refused to pay. The federal and regional government did our best to support them. We fulfilled your directive to the letter."

I wonder which other directive from Putin was followed " to the letter" ...

****

I suppose Manu posted this to make it sound "ominous" - but in the United states, if employers "refuse to pay" wages that are due to their employees...they will face some pretty strong "government directives" here, too (laugh). Businesses get shut down and confiscated over unpaid wages and unpaid taxes, you know.

Let's take some Chesspride in the fact that during the Womens' Championship in 2004, a hunger strike was staged by opponents of Ilyumzhinov, who protested that the nation's funds were being used in this manner while the people were starving.
70% unemployment will do that to you.

Does it feed our chesspride to read headlines such as this one in The Guardian: The Man who bought Chess.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/oct/29/chess.features
"Quite where Ilyumzhinov's spending ends and where Kalmykia's begins is a matter of bitter debate."

Semyon Ateyev is pretty clear in his opinion of Kirsan. He's the director of the Kalmykia Bureau of Human Rights: “He’s a pathological liar with serious psychological problems. We don’t have any economic development, because he spends his whole time organising chess tournaments.”
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1631

The world of chess will look very sad when this hits the fan, as it will.

****
Let's recap -- people are upset because the government of Kalmykia opted to gain name recognition through investment in chess.

Question: Did you know the terms "Kalmykia" or "Elista" prior to 1995?

Small states or quasi-states face difficult choices about how to gain name recognition and investment opportunities. Some invest funds in tourism. Some invest in manufacturing (at cheap global labor market wages). Some are blessed with natural resources to sell.

How is this different than another state bitching and moaning about how "our valuable commodity X" is being sold to foreigners at rock bottom prices while we starve! Whether it is Arabs and oil, Central Americans and fruit, or Kalmyks and chess...the refrain is the same.

This is not purely a Kalmyk problem.

To those who object -- what products, goods or services would you suggest Kalmykia should produce in order to make a better return (than chess)?

Is it even possible for them to make a return?

Or should they stay with their (small) local economy forever...with no hope of change?

In the late 90s, some said the Kalmyk govt must be laundering money through chess -- as what return could it provide?

Shouldn't the chess federations of the world all shut down -- and turn their meager resources to something more productive for the people of their respective countries?

This idea that "chess = squandering" is alarming...but especially so when it is mouthed by chessplayers.

The approval is not unanimous. "He's a pathological liar with serious psychological problems," said Semyon Ateyev, the director of the Kalmykia Bureau of Human Rights. "After 14 years of his rule, we're still one of the poorest regions of Russia. We have a Minister of Economic Development, who's also in charge of organising chess tournaments. We don't have any economic development, because he spends his whole time organising chess tournaments."

The New Humanist makes it appear that it is Ilyumzhinov who spends his whole time organizing tournaments, when the original quote shows it is the Minister of (nonexistent) Economic Development.

****
"We don't have any economic development -- because he spends his whole time building hotels catering to foreign visitors" -- crank living in Jamaica.

Could anyone brief on how the FIDE elections work? The FIDE website states Kirsan has support from continental Europe, but Karpov has support for German and Swiss federations. Its confusing. Which federations are entitled to give votes? and what is all this letter of support business.

I understood that "continental Europe etc" support to mean that FIDE president has officials that oversee various continents - and those officials support Kirsan, which is probably not a huge surprise given that they are his team and have been appointed by him.

Chess was no where NEAR as popular before Kasparov's tenure as World Champion. During his reign, the regular prize fund for the WCC went into the Millions of US dollars, routine major tournaments flourished, and chess publishing and computer programs skyrocketed. More people play chess now than ever in history. He did more for Chess than all of his predecessors combined. And as for the turmoil with FIDE? If it hadn't been for the mess that KIRSAN & CAMPOMANES made, Kasparov wouldn't have HAD to leave FIDE to keep chess going. FIDE couldn't even organize World Championships for cryng out loud!

***
Your chronology is flawed -- Kasparov and Short were forfeited in 1993 -- prior to the election of Illyumzhinov in 1995 (who had to deal with the aftermath of the bad acts of those two in trying to remove the world title). Kirsaw was the man with the broom and the wallet -- sweeping up and paying for the actions of Kasparov and Short.

Kasparov's title reign 1985-1993 did see an overall increase in chess popularity, tournaments, prize funds, etc. However, the size of the impact was not as large as the Fischer boom of the 1970s. Different starting points and different ending points.

Pre-Fischer -- chess was tiny. Post-Fischer it was half the size it is today.

Kasparov had a much better starting point for any gain attributed to him.

And certainly after his forfeit in 1993 -- say 1993 thru 2000 -- those were rocky times for chess and FIDE...which is why Illyumzhinov's money was so badly needed as there was no alternative. He was the Lincoln who kept FIDE solvent and together.

For those who like to go down with the ship -- but keep their T's crossed and I's dotted -- go ahead, pick someone else with no money. Repeat 1996.

@misanhp

Amazing. I wasn't aware that Ilyumzhinov had shunted one of his stooges into the office of the mayor of Elista.
http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/4447-vyacheslav-namruev-mayor-of-elista.html

And what the he** is that news doing in the FIDE-pages?

I seriously believe that chess organizations worldwide should take a long and hard think as to their association with the president of Kalmykia. Shouldn't be long before the treatment of the ex-mayor catches the eye of an enterprising journalist. And that's just the snowflake resting on top of the tip of the iceberg as far as what Ilyumzhinov has been up to.

But it's really a very simple question: should the most impoverished republic of Russia be financing world chess? And should world chess be morally compromised by being paid to be in orbit around Planet Kirsan?

Third World corruption... interesting. It usually takes at least two parties to be corrupt. It's relative. Generally those who are poor are corrupt with those who are not poor. The difference of corruption between rich and poor is tremendous... rich nations are corrupt in billions.

However, in this case it's pure politics... who ever has the best song and dance. I believe this election will be different and a few chess sets and clocks during election time will not get it. Ilyumzhinov has done little for smaller federations. He recently visited the Congo, a place with no chess community! Yet, he pulled out the FIDE flag and posed with the President. I could not understand this. We'll see what happens.

We've just published a lengthy analysis of the situation at

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/fide-elections-meaningful-and-meaningless-support/

It might add a bit more to this already excellent thread of comments.

All this is very depressing. Bribery and nepotism have become the norm since the days of Campomanes (Karpovmanes!) and FIDE is doomed unless turkeys(the beneficiaries of the corrupt status quo)vote for Christmas.

African countries or 'Third World countries' should be banned from playing internationally. They are bought too easily at these FIDE elections. It's a disgrace.

Kasparov formally endorses Karpov for FIDE President: http://www.interfax-news.com/newsinf.asp?pg=2&id=151883

Here are some figures which I posted at Chessvibes today:

All FIDE delegates have one vote in the president election, independently from how big or small their national chess federation is.

That makes for some funny numbers. Let’s take a small European federation, like The Faroe Islands. http://www.faroechess.com/

I couldn’t find the exact figures for The Faroe Islands. But their Chess Federation has 12 clubs. The Norwegian Chess Federation has about 110 clubs/2600 members. Average 24 members each club. If 24 members in average each club, then totally 288 chess players on the Faroe Islands.

If you calculate chess players divided by population, then there should by only 26 FIDE registrated chessplayers on The Faroe Islands. (50,000 citizens compared with 5 millions in Norway).

Anyway, if there are 26 or 288 chess players on the Faroe Islands, it’s quite interesting that they have the same voting power that the delegates from USA, Russia and other big federations.

Here is the list of FIDE members: http://www.fide.com/component/fidedirectory/?view=federations

I counted 169 countries.
Africa: 33
Asia: 47
Europe: 54
America: 35

It seems clear that Karpov’s wining chances are small, unless he goes on a global road trip, securing votes from all the tiny federations. On the other side, Karpov is a billionaire, while Kirsan Ilyumzhinov is “only” a millionaire. Karpov can afford to fly in his delegates on First Class, rather than Tourist Class.

If Karpov is serious about his candidature, he has probably already some assistants going around in the world, making connections and collecting votes.

chesspride - Evidently your brain is flawed. There is nothin wrong with my chronology. That's why I said "KIRSAN & CAMPOMANES". And Kirsan did not pay one dime that had anything to do with Kasparov or Short. That match was not funded by FIDE. And your statement about Post-Fischer boom being larger than the "during" Kasparov boom also lacks only the merit of being true. Check the total number of players (and professional players) world-wide during the late 70's/early 80's to the late 80's to 2000. And then do the same for prize funds (you can even index for inflation too if you think it will change the argument in your favor (but it won't, I checked). As for Kirsan keeping FIDE together, I'll buy the Lincoln analogy as dead on; if anyone got in either person's way, they just KILLED them.

****
Petrosian v. Botvinnik -- prize fund under $20,000

Fischer vs. Spassky -- prize fund of over $500,000

That's approx. 25x

Unless Kasparov is commanding $12Million purses, Fischer had a bigger impact (relatively speaking).

PS Illyumzhinov wouldn't have paid a dime for Kasparov v. Short because:

1. Kirsan wasn't part of FIDE then
2. Kasparov and Short were forfeited and not part of FIDE then

I see no reason to deny that Kasparov's popularity impacted chess growth...but he started from a better position. Fischer's impact was far greater.

And none of this explains your odd assertion linking Campo and Kirsan. Kirsan came in to clean up Campo's messes.

Petrosian v. Botvinnik -- prize fund under $20,000

Fischer vs. Spassky -- prize fund of over $500,000

That's approx. 25x

Unless Kasparov is commanding $12Million purses, Fischer had a bigger impact (relatively speaking).

PS Illyumzhinov wouldn't have paid a dime for Kasparov v. Short because:

1. Kirsan wasn't part of FIDE then
2. Kasparov and Short were forfeited and not part of FIDE then

I see no reason to deny that Kasparov's popularity impacted chess growth...but he started from a better position. Fischer's impact was far greater.

And none of this explains your odd assertion linking Campo and Kirsan. Kirsan came in to clean up Campo's messes.

****

I will correct myself before someone else does.

The figure for 1972 should be $250,000, not $500,000.

Thus:

1963 under $20,000
1972 $250,000 (approx. 12x the 1963 match)

I should revise my state to:

Unless Kasparov is commanding $3 million purses, Fischer had the bigger impact.

Browsing the internet one finds:

1978 Karpov-Korchnoi $560,000

1990 Kasparov-Karpov $3 million

1992 Fischer - Spassky $5 million

1993 FIDE Karpov-Timman $4 million (promised but very likely much less was paid)

1993 PCA Kasparov-Short $1.7 million UKP ($2.5 million US)

1995 PCA Kasparov-Anand $1.5 million

1996 FIDE Karpov-Kamsky $2 million (with $500,000 as a "voluntary" donation back to Kalmykia)

2010 Anand -- Topalov $2 million Euro ($3 million US)

Let's recap: Fischer elevated title purses by a factor of 10 or more.

Kasparov (marginally) maintained absolute purses at that level -- however we note that inflation would not be kind to this analysis and would show the economic draw of title matches went down significantly over time.

QED -- Fischer had more impact as his starting position was far worse.

What did you do for the summer, Bobby?

Golly, I raised world title match purses by a factor of 10+, and my successor benefited by a factor of 2!

What did you do for the summer, Garry?

I also raised world title match purses by a factor of 10 (vs. 1972).

What about inflation, Garry?

Oops.

Not to beat a dead horse..but some might like this link to an inflation calculator:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Using this link, one finds that

$20,000 1963 becomes $27,000 1972 and $86,000 1990

Thus, it is fair to say that Fischer did increase title purses by approx 10x

Again, using the link one finds

$250,000 1972 becomes $782,000 1990

Thus, the $3M purse in 1990 is only (approx) 4x the 1972 purse. Larger, for sure...but not by the same scale.

For comparison, the 1972-2009 bump would be $1,268,000. Thus, the 2010 purse is approx 2.5 times the 1972 purse.

Karpov is a BILLIONAIRE???? Has he even sponsored one tournament with those billions....billions????

I have Karpov's campaign slogan - "Yes we Caro Kann!"

Bobby Fiske,

Yes... I believe Myanmmar or Faroe Islands should have the same votes as Russia. At what other time will these small federations matter if not for the voting within FIDE? Otherwise they'd be ignored totally. What incentive would they have to participate in proceedings?

I'm wondering why it is perceived that if smaller federations vote for a candidate, it is because they were "bought" under unsavory circumstances. That is a sickening stereotype. Has it ever occurred that they have the insight to vote for whomever they feel will address their needs the best? Are larger federations any different? I don't believe so. Who will win Russia's support? The one who "sells" the best.

Voting exercises are about putting your platform out and yes, selling yourself. It's interesting... if Karpov wins, it will be because the small federations were bought. If Ilyumzhinov wins, they will say the small federations were bought. There is such cynicism in what people tout as "democracies".

Another thing... "Third World" is an outdated Cold War term and is clearly out of vogue. It is like using Descriptive Chess notation.

"Yes... I believe Myanmmar or Faroe Islands should have the same votes as Russia."
--Definitely agree. But I do worry about China, and India splitting into one-federation-per-person and unfairly outvoting Faroe and Myanmar 2,000,000,000 to 2.

"At what other time will these small federations matter if not for the voting within FIDE? Otherwise they'd be ignored totally."
--Agree again. And for the same reason I recommend that members of the Joylynne Drive Chess Club be seeded directly into the Candidates tournament because otherwise they will surely be ignored.

"I'm wondering why it is perceived that if smaller federations vote for a candidate, it is because they were "bought" under unsavory circumstances."
--Because, presumably, their votes can be had less expensively than those of US and European federations, who already have chess clocks and fancy watches.

"Another thing... "Third World" is an outdated Cold War term and is clearly out of vogue. It is like using Descriptive Chess notation."
--Don't want to be out of vogue. How about flipping the order and calling them the First World?

I guess being poor ain't outta vogue, though.
"I believe Myanmmar or Faroe Islands should have the same votes as Russia"
Agreed, if we assume that GMs vote like sheep then equal weighting is a must.
http://www.rala.is/beta/30%20Faeroe%20Islands%20sheep.htm

This issue has been debated to death and the advocates of weighted voting within FIDE have not made a coherent case, imho. A nation's chess strength doesn't derive only from FIDE-rated players as there are many players who don't play in FIDE-rated tournaments. And why not extend this further? Maybe weighting formulas based on the number of titled players or just an average of the players' rating for each country.Or the number of arbiters or active organizers?

1.FIDE is an organization of national federations with equal rights and responsibilities.
2. There are separate interest groups for GMs, arbiters etc.
3.Democracy is at times inconvenient and rightly assumes that all heads are equal, even 'poor' ones.
4. The arrogant assumption of moral rectitude and incorruptibility within 'first world' chess federations is a myth believed by only those who have not followed chess politics in those countries. The USCF is a poignant example.

Two friends of the same dictator running for president and people still blames democracy , fascinating.

1.FIDE is an organization of national federations with equal rights and responsibilities.
2. There are separate interest groups for GMs, arbiters etc.
3.Democracy is at times inconvenient and rightly assumes that all heads are equal, even 'poor' ones.
4. The arrogant assumption of moral rectitude and incorruptibility within 'first world' chess federations is a myth believed by only those who have not followed chess politics in those countries. The USCF is a poignant example.

***
Democracy is a terrible form of government -- see Cicero's monograph "On Mob Rule".

That is why the US follows a republican/representative model.

FIDE would do well to have two sub-assemblies -- a senate where all federations have one vote and a house where representation is based either on overall national population or number of FIDE-rated players.

Nations with populations under 100,000 having equal vote to the US with 300,000,000 is a bit silly. Now, if a smaller country has 5,000 FIDE players and a larger country has only 3,000 FIDE players, that's very different -- an example might be Spain vs. China.

Quasi-states also play in FIDE -- and really there is no reason why the 50 sovereign stats of the USA could not/should not be represented separately under the current model. That model should change to a republican model, avoiding these distortions where the Faeroe Islands have equal vote with 50 sovereign US states.

What is the norm in sports? What happens in FIFA, FIBA, etc.? From a quick search it appears that FIFA follows the "one federation, one vote" approach.

Would be pretty silly to claim that "first world nations" are without corruption. But that's not the issue here.

The question, Mr. Chesspride, is whether it's acceptable that a despot ruler of a developing nation, one which happens to be the least developed in the Russian Federation, with the lowest per capita revenue ... that this ruler should own world chess, and have it as his personal toy to play with, until he gets first hand experience with defenestration.

Kalmykia is literally dirt poor. It could very well be that oil and gas will change that - but if world chess is dependent upon this financial arrangement with its reeking quid pro quo, then chess is without honour.

Believe it's been mentioned in the thread.

Karpov owns Petromir, which has the rights to a section of an area in Siberia where there have been various large gas finds, and where Petromir has done very promising exploratory drilling.

More on Petrovir:

Oleg Mitvol, deputy head of the Federal Service for the Oversight of Natural Resources, said information about 1.2 trillion cubic meters of estimated natural gas reserves at the deposit, provided by the small private energy company Petromir, was dubious.

"I began an investigation yesterday," Mitvol said. "It all looks like a major fraud."

He said the company drilled only one well during its exploration work, while it takes several dozen wells to confirm such a large estimated reserve.

"They should either be given the Hero of Russia award or be sent to prison, as there can be no compromise," Mitvol said.

The official said the next possible step of suspected fraud will be a sale of the deposit, which has faked estimated reserves.

Bilionaire? LOL I suppose he could give chess lessons in prison :)

I concede beforehand that number of titled players is not the only, maybe not the best criterion, but still ... :
The top10 federations in that respect are Russia, Germany, USA, Serbia, Ukraine, Spain, Hungary, France, Poland and Netherlands. Four of them are supporting Karpov - Germany, USA, Spain and France (total 2272 titled players). At least worthwhile mentioning - all western democracies (though maybe not free from corruption and shenanigans). Maybe they just choose the lesser evil, but one can only vote for a candidate who candidates ... .

Should they be overruled by five smaller federations? To avoid First vs. Third World issues, I give three lists:
- Finland, Belgium, Portugal, Luxemburg, Wales (total 218 titled players)
- Canada, Australia, United Arab Emirates*, New Zealand, Japan (total 279)
- Nigeria, Botswana, Mozambique, Uganda, Ghana (total 22)

* doesn't quite fit into the list, but else I can't come up with a fifth rather rich non-European country

In an article in The New Yorker from 2006, Karpov is quoted saying that “even a dickhead would do a better job than Ilyumzhinov." I challenge Mig to come up with a campaign logo using that imagery.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/24/060424fa_fact4?currentPage=all

The original German interview had the word "Schwachkopf". "Dickhead" seems a strange translation - did somebody read it as "Schwanzkopf"? What it really means is something like "idiot" or "dimwit" (literally "weak-head").

Should they be overruled by five smaller federations?"

Again, yes. That's the rule of democracy. That's how democracy works on the inter-national level, completely analogous to the democratic principles on the national level.

Of course, it would be convenient to change the system, so that you'd only have to bribe the biggest federations (cuts down some work), but democratic it's not.

***
Which again shows why democracy is a poor model for such organizations.

Representative government...based partly on size of political unit...is preferred.

In our local club, we do not allow casual players the same say as the long-term players. If we did, the club would close almost overnight.

BTW, FIDE itself is less, more or "differently" democratic when it comes to World Cup qualification: 46 qualifiers from Europe, 19 each from the Americas and Asia (including Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific?), 6 from Africa.

It would be an interesting but somewhat ridiculous concept to have one player from each federation: Sorry Svidler, Cheparinov, Fressinet, ... but there is one stronger player from your country. A warm welcome to Ken Gibson (Bahamas, ELO 1911), Edward Nii Lamptey Thompson (Ghana, ELO 1831), .... . Of course that's how things work for the Olympiads.

Democracies use both direct and proportional representation, and are still called democracies. The one unit/one vote principle sometimes translates badly, but is also the only way of actually keeping large international bodies together. If not, you would see them pull away, in accordance with the "weight factors" of the unit: population, economy, etc.

Which is why large nations are frustrated by the UN, but still like to have the UN around.

As to chess - I'd think that one could look at some term-limits (or is the presidency yours as long as you can buy it?), and even consider various voting schemes using the internet, letting the players decide, instead of their federation's paid for rep's. That's possible today.

What's needed is a functioning and effective administration, with a president that has one term in office. In France, they used to have a seven year presidential term, but shortened it to five, but with an option to be reelected for one consecutive term.
That kind of term-limit scheme would be one step, if the federations are unwilling to accept a proportional weighting according to their actual influence on the playing of the game.

@Thomas
[I concede that the number of titled players is not directly proportional to the number of players with a FIDE or national rating - in some countries, it is more difficult to get norms or even an international rating. But this is unlikely to wipe out order of magnitude differences - and the numbers I gave are readily available from the FIDE rating pages.]

Thomas, you're tying yourself up in knots of illogicality.
Please explain clearly what your suggested voting formula would be and how this would improve FIDE.

I find it distasteful that 'Third world countries' would be dissected harshly in this argument without any opinion from their side being shared here.

I have been to many african countries and there is present a vibrant chess tradition which unfortunately is not presented in the mainstream chess media. One hardly sees chessbase or chessvibes present African chess stories. It's one of the hidden treasures of chess.

It maybe true that African delegates and perhaps other third world delegates are susceptible to Kirsan's favours but that should not take away anything from a chess culture that well and truly exists albeit in a very hidden part of the chess world. The politics of the FIDE presidency should be seperated from the chess.

I find the current argument on this blog to be borderline racist.

Hardy, I too would like to see more African stories on those sites, but I wonder why that doesn't happen already. There are many possible reasons- maybe they simply don't receive enough reports, who knows? I am also unfamiliar with how their news policy operates...but I expect it is easier for them to obtain news from near their bases, which I presume are in Holland and Germany. You do see the odd report from Asia etc-I presume some participant sends it in. I think someone in the know there could clarify that, but I doubt the sites consciously ignore the area (not that you insinuated that).

And while we're at it, why not look at the origins of the members of the FIDE Presidential Board and the top-level bureaucrats? I doubt they're not all corrupt third-worlders.

A little correction. There are permanent members with veto power in the Security Council, but there are also other seats, which are filled by the other member nations on a rotating basis. All sitting SC nations have a vote in decisions.
The assembly also makes numerous decisions and the various active bodies of the UN are constantly making decisions with a significant impact around the world.

The problem here is not one of "first world" bias versus "third world" members of FIDE, but the fact that FIDE is suffering from the same problems that plagued FIFA, the IOC and the international athletics bodies -- FIDE should find a better way.

and how exactly do the 65 GMs,791 active-only titled players, 8640 Fide-rated players, and about 236'000 national-rated players in Germany participate in the election of the president of the German chess federation?

***

In US, it is a direct election by all national federation members over a given age at the time of the election.

Those who are paid members of the federation may vote. To repeat the example of the local club -- those who are casual/unpaid do not vote. One puts one's money where one's vote is -- the Prussian Junker model from the 19th century.

"Once again: I respect your and Hardy Berger's opinion, while not sharing it. But only "your side" was accusing my side of being non-democratic and, more recently, borderline racist - IMHO a questionable debating technique."

Heh, questionable debating technique. The irony... I have NOT accused "your side" of being borderline racist UNLESS you consider yourself to be part of the "side" that casts suspicion on the "third world". But you yourself said you wanted to avoid such issues. So how should I interpret that?

Moreover, statements about racism and "non-democraticness" are not necessarily parts of a "debating technique", as such they are just statements. As for the issue about democracy, I truly don't know what you are talking about, since "both sides" believe _they_ have the right idea about what democracy entails. But keep claiming the moral high ground if it makes you feel better.

Has anyone been able to very Susan Polgar's claims that Karpov's net personal worth is $2 Billion? I tried looking up everything that I could find on Petromir (company that Karpov supposedly owns) and anything that indicated Karpov's personal assets and I got virtually bupkiss.

I am so excited about Karpov becoming FIDE president for any number of reasons.

One is that Karpov himself is obviously a great person. Just the fact that he has continued to play top-level tournament chess, even when he scores humiliatingly low scores in his recent tournaments against today's strongest GMs, speaks volumes about his character. He's not worried about protecting his mystique as a former World Champ; he just loves the game.

And in fact, even back in '75, in his quiet way, he was, above all, a chess devotee as well as a most brilliant player. He tried everything he could to find a way to play Fischer, even meeting with Fischer "secretly" in Japan, while stating publicly that he probably was not strong enough to beat Fischer. I mean, what a class act! And how sad for him that he never got to play Fischer.

Also, it was beautiful that he visited Kasparov in jail when the latter was arrested a couple of years ago, and that he (Karpov) did some kind chess-for-world-peace campaign with Gorbachev, and has been involved with Unicef.

Combine all these fine qualities with the fact that the man was and will always be a legendary chess artist and superstar, and he just MIGHT restore glory to world chess here in the post-toilet-wars/super computer era. Go Karpov!

Post-Script: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8662822.stm

It is really hard to choose from the two chess players since both are very skillful.