Below is part of my Q&A session on ChessCafe.com this month:
Do you recognize Veselin Topalov as the legitimate world champion?
Absolutely! It was a well-deserved win. Moreover, he also proves it with his rating which is expected to be around 2806.
Do you think there should be a unification match between Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov?
If Kramnik can find the money for it, then yes – why not? I am sure the fans will enjoy it. However, I absolutely don’t think FIDE should seek funding for this because it would be unfair to the other top players. Kramnik didn’t win the candidate’s match against Shirov and he shouldn’t have been playing against Kasparov for the world championship in 2000 because he didn’t earn this right.
He broke off from FIDE to play against Kasparov for his own personal benefit and glory. But he’s only played one match in 5 years and there’s no cycle in place. He refused to play in San Luis and he’s the only world champion in recent memory to finish last in a tournament. So why should FIDE reward his actions with a multimillion dollar payday while most other grandmasters are having a hard time making a living?
I understand that the fans want to see exciting matches, but I recently polled nearly 100 random chess enthusiast and their overwhelming choice was for a Topalov – Kasparov match with Topalov – Anand a distant second, and Topalov – Kramnik in last place. The other issue is money. Where can one find a sponsor that is willing to put up $3 million for Kramnik when he has a hard time drawing media attention?
On the other hand, more than 2,600 tickets were sold for the Gorbachev address and my 8-game blitz match with Anatoly Karpov in a little town of 3,200 people. There was even a $1,000 a plate black-tie dinner with Karpov, Gorbachev and me as part of the gala and it was sold out in advance.
What do you think is the best format for choosing a world champion?
I think there should be a round-robin tournament for the top 16 players by ratings and official qualifications. The top 3 finishers and the reigning world champion should be placed in the semi-final. Then the four players would have to play matches (8-games for semi-final and 14-16 games for the final). The world champion would play the 4th seed while the 2nd and 3rd seed would face each other. Then the winners would face-off for the title. I just spoke about this with Karpov and he agreed with my suggestions in principle.
A world champion must prove themselves in a round-robin and match play. This way there would be no disputes. The champion should then again be seeded to the semi-final in the next cycle, while the runner-up should automatically qualify for the 16 player round-robin event in the following cycle.
I absolutely agree you !!
Tommy says:
Having 16 players in a single round robin does seem to allow more people to participate than 8 people in a double round robin.
After months of debate on the topic of choosing the champion I have come to the conclusion that a match is necessary or at minimum at least best. and that the match needs to be with the reigning world champion.
your idea of 2 matches with 4 people is good. however, with Fide being so against matches I dont know if fide will allow it. also the final match might not have the reigning world champion playing. and I think it best to have the world champion in the final match. The idea that one must beat the world champion to become the new world champion has many supporters and seems to make good sense.
therefore one could modify the above by having the 2 top players in a match to determine the challenger. this allows the challenger to prove that he can win a match. match play is different than tournament play.
my minimum idea is a san luis type tournament ( 16 players might be better ) to choose a challenger and then the challenger plays the reigning world champion.
I really think the world champion should play the new challenger. this allows the passing of the batton to the new champion. there is a strong sense of legitimacy that the new champion has beaten the old champion. this leaves the new champion with a strong clean claim to the championship. who can then disagree.
most people felt kasparov was the best chess player but when he lost a match directly to kramnik, there was not much the fans could say. they wanted a new match which should have taken place. but the fact that kramnik won a match against the champion was strong evidence of legitimacy.
Tommy
Susan, Thank You for the backround on Shirov. I didn’t realize how grateful Kramnik should be for the opportunity he got from Kasparov and has now wasted.
I think your championship plan would be excellent for 2006!
Then once a champion was established I think the champion should only have to play one person to keep his or HER title. (The winner of the annual or bi-annul round robin.)
Susan ,elsewhere in this interview you mention plans to certify chess teachers. Sounds like something I would check out, though I assume it won’t happen in the NYC area for a while yet.
I “MAY” be possibly considering introducing chess to a dozen 6 year old girls in the spring for one hour and ONE HOUR only.
Is there any fun way “ANYone” can recommend to hold their attention? You did some fun things with some children in the beginning of this blog but I can’t find it. (chess chocolate or chess craft??) Maybe I’ll google chess craft?
When is the animated DVD coming out(not in time for the holidays is it?),
maybe I could show 10 or 15 minutes of that.
Thanks much
Susan said:
“I am working on a standard curriculum for chess teachers, parents and coaches. My first official certifying class will be held early next year in Texas. I will show them how to teach, what to teach and provide them with all the necessary materials to teach in a chess club or school. I will do similar classes across the country as time permits. I hope that there will soon be enough qualified coaches out there with similar training curriculum. It’s very important to give the parents, coaches, teachers or local volunteers the proper tools to help our children”
Intriguing suggestion, although I also believe it is best for the world champion to beat the world champion, so I would prefer the 16 RR go into a match of 4, and the winner of that against the world champion, but that would present more of a logistics problem, so perhaps the top two match and winner plays the WC…of course your suggestion would be a huge improvement over what we have now as it is. Who would you most support in the upcoming FIDE elections? There is little chance Karpov will run? Or Gata Kamsky?
Susan Polgar for Fide president. No one in any nation does more to promote chess, and no one commenting on the current state of championship chess makes more sense.
I also agree. Susan makes much more sense than any of the old been there done that guys. Susan for President!
Mayan
I recently had a similar discussion on uscl about this topic, as are people on chess servers around the world i’m sure. Traditionalists (as i will call them) strongly believe that a true world champion must be crowned in a match. This is the way it was done for decades and is the purest and most logical way to determine the strongest of 2 players. I would have to agree. However, I do not believe that strong match play would “trump” subpar tournament results. In light of this, the suggestion of a double RR qualifying tournament followed by a sequence of, can I say, candidates matches to determine the top challenger makes all the sense in the world and sounds very FAMILIAR. The great thing about history is it often repeats itself. I feel this has been a formula that has worked in teh past and, with some tweaks here and there, will work in the future.
The thing I did not like about the Karpov Polgar match in Kansas (aside from not being there) was that the tickets to see Gorby were $50 but to see both Polgar and Karpov was $10.
Linares 1994 alone is enough reason to make it $25-30 at least to see even just Karpov play.
I agree with you too. I like before when you speak with Judit can you make this again?I think she is a myth in chess history and i like her style.I m looking forward for your new dvd for kids.I hope soon,thanks for everything.
A sixteen players tournament should necessarily be by Swiss system. A double round robin would take too long.
It is misleading to have made no mention of the fact that Shirov WAS offered a contract to sign for a title match against Kasparov, but that Shirov declined to sign because $200,000 for the loser was not enough for Shirov.
When Fischer refused to sign in 1975, the world eventually pushed forward without him. Should the world have said “No more title matches unless Shirov eventually signs”?
No sponsor was willing to offer more than $650,000 for a Kasparov – Shirov match, perhaps because Kasparov had overwhelmed Shirov in their previous games.
Perhaps Shirov has a minor point in his favor by his complaint that the $650,000 should have been split more evenly between the winner and loser. I am unsure what the traditional $money split %percentage is?
Kasparov and everyone else knew that Kramnik would be a tougher opponent for Kasparov, even though Shirov did defeat Kramnik in the candidates’ match. History proved how right they were.
As GM Larry Evans put it, Kramnik might not have been the exactly proper challenger, but he proved himself to be more than a worthy challenger.