ACP position on “FIDE Proposals for future World Championship Cycles”
27th of February 2007
To: Mr Kirsan Ilyumzhinov – FIDE President
CC: FIDE World Chess Championship Committee, FIDE Office
Dear Sir,
The ACP has thoroughly studied both proposals for the future World Chess Championship Cycles suggested by FIDE. In this letter we would like to present our official position, though we have to admit, that some of the ACP Board Members have different opinion.
Both the World Chess Championship Match (WCCM) in Elista and the World Chess Championship Tournament (WCCT) in San Luis were very successful in the terms they attracted spectators all over the world. Every day chess fans were following and media were covering both events, thus it would not be rational to resign neither from the WCCM nor from the WCCT. Therefore, the first proposal (Proposal A) cannot be treated as an improvement to the current situation. Contrary, the second proposal (Proposal B) includes all three important events (World Chess Cup – WCC, World Chess Championship Tournament, and World Chess Championship Match), at the same time drastically simplifying the whole cycle by elimination of Candidates Matches, Last Chance Tournament, and “2700 rule”. All these changes were proposed by the ACP already a long time ago, thus we welcome them with open arms.
While studying the official proposal, we have found a few possibilities to improve it:
1)
In our opinion, the WCCT and the WCC should not be played in the same year for several reasons:
a) It leads to the confusion among chess players and especially journalists who often mix cycles.
b) It is always better to separate events in time than to have many events organised at a short period of time followed by a long break.
c) The participants of the WCCT will have more time to rest and to prepare to the WCC, so they will not massively decline their participation in the WCC as was the case in 2005.
d) It is not reasonable to have such a long break (2 years!) between the qualifying event (WCC) and the final event (WCCT).
For the above mentioned reasons, the ACP proposes the following schedule:
I) WCCT 2007 in Mexico
II) WCC 2007 in Russia
III) WCC 2008
IV) WCCT 2009
V) WCC 2010
VI) WCCT 2011
World Chess Championship Matches should be organised in years following World Chess Championship Tournaments.
2)
We find the rule: “A challenger cannot use his right as previous World Champion more than once. If such a case occurs, then he is replaced by the winner of the last World Cup.” illogical and not consistent with the whole proposal. There is no reason to decline the participation in the WCCM to any player who constantly becomes the world champion by winning the WCCM as well as to any player who constantly wins the WCCT.
3)
It has to be decided who shall get the right to challenge the world champion if the same person wins the WCCM and the WCCT. There are 5 possible solutions:
a) the previous world champion
b) the winner of the WCC
c) the leader of the rating list
d) the player who finished second in the WCCT
e) there will be no match
First three options may lead to serious irregularities. Let’s imagine that the previous world champion (or the winner of the WCC or the leader of the rating list) plays in the last round of the WCCT against the winner of the WCCM. If the game is won by the winner of the WCCM, he keeps the title of the world champion, thus his opponent gains the right to challenge him in the match! If the game is drawn or won by the opponent, somebody else wins the WCCT, thus by not losing the game, the opponent loses the right to participate in the WCCM! Of course, this is unacceptable.
It would be a pity not to have a match at all, thus the most reasonable possibility is to give the right to challenge the champion to the player who finished second in the WCCT.
4)
There should be strict rules regarding substitutions in the WCCT. We propose the following solution:
a) If one or both of 2 best players from the previous WCCT withdraw(s), the qualification spot(s) go(es) to the previous WCCT.
b) If one or more players from the WCC withdraw(s) or one (or both) of 2 best players from the previous WCCT finish(es) on one of top 4 places in the WCC, the qualification spot(s) go(es) to the WCC. For this reason it is important to establish not only the order of top 4 players in the WCC, but also reserve players, thus the players losing their matches in 1/4-finals of the WCC should continue their participation to determine the final order.
5)
All spots by rating (including the one to the WCCT) should be determined according to the most current rating and not average of old ones for 2 reasons:
a) organisers, media, and chess fans prefare to see in action currently best players
b) if a player has the highest current rating, but not the avarage rating, it means he has played well in recent tournaments, it means he is currently better than his opponents, thus he currently deserves more to qualifying to a tournament (for instance to the WCCT) than his opponent who was better but a year earlier.
6)
In our opinion, it deserves consideration to introduce the rule allowing the winner of the WCCT to keep the title of the world champion in the case he draws the WCCM against the challenger. It would visibly increase the prestige of the winner of the WCCT, who could be otherwise considered as only “the candidate”, not the real champion. However, this possibility needs to be discussed more widely.
7)
There should be a minimal prize fund announced and secured for all three events.
Best regards
ACP Board
{
“In our opinion…
World Chess Championship Matches should be organised in years following World Chess Championship Tournaments.
“}
They want the WCChamp title decided sometimes by a Match, and decided other times by a Tournament??
This would drain prestige away from both WCChamp titles. That’s right, both.
The chess public could not have been more clear and lopsided in its demand for Matches to be used (for WCChamp title transference), instead of mere tournaments.
The ACP could not be unaware of the outpouring of opinion during Elista 2006, could they?
GeneM
they would like more, with the risk to lose it all.
In a tournament 8 players, in match only two, so they would like money for more players.
Not good. Another possibilty – to keep WCCT after WCC, like 2 Highest from Previous WCCT, 2 Highest by Rating, 4 from WCC, something like that.
WCC = Interzonal, WCCT = Candidates Tournament, but World Chess Champion – only by Match with previous Champion, if previous Champion still alive and not give up crazy. Really it the same system as 50 years ago from 1948. I think the only World Champions for last 20 years are Kasparov (1985-2000) and Kramnik (from 2000), next one will be the man who beat Kramnik in a match. Karpov (in 1993-99), Khalifman :-)), Anand (sorry), Kasymzhanov :-)), Topalov (sorry) are only FIDE Champions, like Matisson (1924), Euwe (1928), Bogolyubov (1929), nothing more or nothing less.
i like proposal A. use the world cup to qualify for the championship. why does ACP want the wcct tournament to play a role in a championship match. tournaments shouldnt be used to qualify for a world title. as fischer said before collusion and intentional draws are used to qualify players for title matches. using the wcct will allow russia since they have so many grandmasters to use collsion to get there man a title shot. i dont like this. the world cup where players face each other one on one is the way to go for world title matches. knockout matches thats the way every sports is done. you get the top say 16 players to play where if you win against your opponent you advance. you lose your out. then the winner of the world cup plays the world champion. my question is if the world champion already qualifies for a title match why is he playing in the world cup. the world champion should be excluded from the world cup and play the winner of the world cup.this will negate all the crap about how many times is a previous champion allowed to get a title shot if he doesnt win the wcc . just simplify everthing. make it understandable and straight forward.
wolverine
so say the top 16 elo players in the world play each other in the world cup. the first seed plays the 16th seed. the second seed plays the 15th seed and so on. the 8th seed plays the 9th seed. then if you win you advance in the wcc if you lose your knocked out. then the winner plays the world champion the next year. the world champion automatically qualifies for the next world title match. they use this system in nba, in world pool championships, hockey, tennis every sport uses this format. why does the chess people have to make things so complicated. its ridiculous.
wolverine
Er didn’t we use to have a knockout championship. And wasn’t it very strongly criticized?
Ok,for me the ACP is trying to solve two problems:
1)Nobody understand very well what we must do if the player winning most of the tournaments(Topalov,Anand) and the winner of the World Chess Match(Kramnik) are not the same person. In Kasparov´s time we have not that problem.
2)Chess needs a circuit of important events each year,as tennis and other sports, and the top elite tournaments(organized by FIDE)have to find their place in it.Linares,Corus and Sofia organizers are speaking and Fide must speak with them too if they want not to mix dates and lose sponsorships.
Well,They are giving some fair solutions,you can agree with them or not.And the easiest solution is not always the good one, as chess teach us every day!
my understanding was that the criticism for the knockout matches was the location and time controls not the format. get the kockout format in the right location with 40 moves for every 120 minute time limits and im sure it will be accepted. they had it in a libya a terrorist state and time controls of 40 moves in 90 minutes. also they probably had to many players in the knockout tourmament which could make it a test of endurance instead of skill. if you just take the top 16 players it will be a test of skill.
wolverine
i think Kramnik should keep his title if he wins this year; if he doesnt, then the winner shall play four games against topalov, if they draw then then winner should be not topalov.
Then either topalov or carlsen (why not?) should be able to play against Kramnik, the winner should be the new world and only champion, then he should deserve to rest four a couple of years!
So in 2008 when the second match takes place you have a World chess camphion, who could be Kramnik, Topalov or Carlsen -the winner from 2007-, Then 2009 nothing, and 2010 nothing.
In 2011 you can start the proposal, and the odd numbers will be to find a challenger for the world champion, and on the even numers you have your match.
so every even numbers you have your world champion and on odd numbers the “champion and challenger for the world title”
is this more clearer than before?
hope so.
Could it be that the ACP simply wants another high paying tournament on the calendar hence their lobbying to include the WCCT? Is it a case of money hungry players?
It is a bit confusing to have a World Chess Championship Tournament the winner of which is NOT the World Champion.
Perhaps call it the World Chess Championship Qualifying Tournament. That might make a little bit of sense.
Why not have two World Champions.
World Champion – Tournament Play
World Champion – Match play
The Match play World Champion must have one World Championship title defense every two years with a player in the top 5 of the elo ratings.(similar Boxing).
WCCT is organised in the alternate years.
Of course the same person could possibly hold both titles. A Super Champion.
Lets just do away with World Champion Title.
Follow Tennis.
1) Rankings
2) Grand Slam Chess Tournaments (4 preferrably)
3) At end of year the 8 best invited for Tourney. Winner is champion for that year only.
So no one can hog the WC title and not play in tourneys or keep his/her performance level.
its obvious the acp has a financial interest in the wcct. this is why they want it to play a prominent role. acp is a joke. nobody recognizes the acp as legitimate. the fide president had it correct using the wcc as a qualifier for the world title.
wolverine
One anon wrote:
Follow Tennis
Why follow tennis? It is about the only popular sport which doesn’t have a clear world champion.
I don’t understand why is this so difficult. We have many sports which easily organize world championships and undisputed world champions. Why not to follow those? Why not to follow soccer (football) for example. The world champion was never debated.
I can not believe how complex this writeup is. This should be a simple process. This is rediculous.
“I can not believe how complex this writeup is. This should be a simple process. This is rediculous.”
I totally agree. It is really simple.
1. Best 16 players in world now play a double round robin.
2. The two players with highest pts play a 24 game match for new World Champion.
3. Have candidates match
4. Every 2 years the WC defends title.
>>
Why not to follow those? Why not to follow soccer (football) for example.
>>
Because those are team sports, and chess is invidivual. A team is never the same team it was last year, while a person always is.
I wrote it:
“Why not to follow those? Why not to follow soccer (football) for example.”
graeme responded:
“Because those are team sports, and chess is invidivual. A team is never the same team it was last year, while a person always is.”
That is not the point. The system is the point. There should be a system, which within each cycle allows literally anyone to run for the WC title. The only way to organize something like this, if all over the world there would be competitions which allow totally unknown Joe Anyone to enter a chess tournament, and if he wins that (unquestionably local) tournament, progress to the next round (however that is organized). In soccer that is the point. Any team can start out and become potentially the next world champion.
Similarly, chess players all over the world should be able to sit down and via local tournaments advance to a next round, and a next round, and a next round, later between countries, or continents, or zones, or name it any which way you like, continue to progress toward the title.
—————-
If it was up to me, this is how I would organize the chess world championship:
Based on population, I would assign a number to each country, and that’s how many “country winners” each country could present. I would let the given countries to decide how they present their local (country) winners, but I would encourage that they would decide based on tournaments within their own country.
Then there would be “Continental Rounds”. Countries within the same continent could narrow down the players to a predetermined number.
Then there would be an intercontinental big tournament somewhere, that’s where the visible (by the people of the world) portion of the cycle would begin. Let’s say, 32 people would make it there. They could play in 8 groups of 4 people, they would play round robin and the winner of each group would advance. The 8 winners from that point on would play knockout and there would be a final winner. THAT winner would play finally against the current world champion a traditional classical match.
Such system would yield a REAL world champion.
gabor-
I like it. Zonal and interzonal matches. 🙂
It worked really well before.
There were only two problems:
1. FIDE was so mismangaged that the matches didn’t always happen. There is now an understanding that professional management is required, so this can be overcome now.
2. Kasparov was so dominant over the others that he was able to break away and have credibility. This allowed (1) to be fatal to the system.
So it was not the system itself, but the dictatorial personalities involved, that doomed it. Any sport’s system could be taken down but such situations. The way in the future is clear. Professional management would remove credibility to break away, even if a new highly dominant champion comes along.
its hard to make out what there saying. whats is this jiberish. can any tell me what are these people are trying to say.
If one or more players from the WCC withdraw(s) or one (or both) of 2 best players from the previous WCCT finish(es) on one of top 4 places in the WCC, the qualification spot(s) go(es) to the WCC.
so if a player withdraws from wcc the spot goes to wcc. that really makes sense???
if you finish top 2 from previous wcct and and top 4 for current wcc you qualify for current wcc.
another real clear explanation.
they must have people writing this from english as a second language course. what is this crap they’re saying.
wolverine