In the past week, there have been countless discussions about Kramnik and the 2007 World Championship in Mexico City.
Some people suggested to make it a candidates’ tournament. That can’t be because of the
serious legal issues with the sponsors and the players who signed on to play.
Some people suggested to give the money back to the sponsor. That’s not possible because they have invested a lot of time, money and effort to put on a spectacular show in 2007. In addition, the players also signed on to compete for the World Championship in 2007 in Mexico City.
Mark Crowther of TWIC (a premier chess information and game website) is a non-bias, non-political and very level headed individual. He offered the following comments on ChessNinja:
I believe that you need to hold a world championship regularly and have sadly come to the conclusion it’s not possible, we’ve damaged the cycle too much. There may come a time when we can do it again but probably not at the moment. A classic candidates series would consist of three sets of matches. You have to get sponsorship for one set, then another, then the candidates final and fit it in with the normal tournament schedule.
The money would have to be very good because you’d expect the players to spend at least a couple of months preparing. Where is there any sign there is this kind of finance, and where are the gaps in the schedule?
On to the world title matches themselves Kasparov couldn’t find sponsorship for a match against Shirov and then took a year to find sponsorship for a match against Kramnik. Kramnik in turn took over a year to find sponsorship for his match against Leko.
At the very least we have to go back to Interzonal, Candidates tournament and World championship match to fit everything into the modern chess calendar and have events attractive enough with a reasonable likelihood of getting sponsors. Sponsors of a long world title match also have to put up with the possibility it might be a rout. I suggested a match tournament, 4 players 6 or 8 cycles as a possible replacement that might give a chance of more interest (more competitors more countries possibly) and with a better chance of something to play for until the end. I know all about the possibility of fixing results but chess desperately needs events to happen.
Also I think you can’t announce a world championship tournament in Mexico and then just cancel it because the wrong player won a match, it seems unfair to the other players to me. If there is a clammer for something else after this then fair enough. But I think the winner of such an event with the best and the possibility of qualifying for everyone else is better than no event at all. Cancel Mexico and we could be talking years down the line to get something else going. You can say its FIDE’s fault but if it’s accepted by the people likely to play in it I don’t think we have the right to say we don’t agree.
I don’t think it’s a short term consideration to hold this event. I think it’s important we show we are able to hold events we schedule, and by we I mean the chess community. In the outside world it would reflect badly not only on FIDE but on us all.
He later added:
I’m sure you can see the tradition that way just so long as you don’t mind completely ignoring the other players and sponsors. That’s the heart of the problem for me.
He continued with:
Well of course I’m no supporter of Kirsan and this problem was at least in part of his making. I certainly don’t see a problem with having Mexico and then going back to matches. In the end I’ll do what I always do, wait and see how it plays out. But let’s hope it doesn’t play out in the next world championship being in 2010 or another immediate split the sport is damaged enough.
And he ended with: Yes, slightly unfortunate way of putting things we of course have the right to say what we want but I think it’s the players who are competing who are far more important.
I was desperate for Bessel Kok to win the last FIDE election, he didn’t and I don’t see any way he can be unseated.
But if Kramnik signed a contract to play under FIDE under a single crown I would have thought it would mean he would have to play in their scheduled event.
I just don’t think its that big of a deal to play in Mexico in an event which will be classical in style and as strong as it can be and then revert back to a match if that proves feasible.
What I can see happening is Mexico is cancelled, the candidates series limps on and we get a title match in 2010 that simply not acceptable.
Mark offered a very level headed point of view. Do you agree with him?
Match play and tournament play are different styles of chess as I see it, much like blitz and rapid are different styles. So why not have a world championship for each? Then the sponsors in Mexico will be happy, and so will the players, including Kramnik if he chooses not to play. One style can certainly be used as a qualification for the other, but there’s more need to lump their championships together any more than there’s a need to merge the blitz and classical championships.
The title of classical (match) World Chess Champion (Steinitz…Kramnik) cannot, by definition, be determined by a tournament. World Chess Champion is decided by a match between Champion and Challenger.
If Mexico City 2007 is a tournament (whether Kramnik plays in it or not), then it can only determine a “FIDE World Chess Champion.” The winner of Mexico City 2007 would still need to challenge and defeat Kramnik in a match to become the true World Chess Champion.
I love how FIDE and the chess powers that be guaranteed continued chaos and a multitude of problems with the WC even before the winner was decided. If Kramnik plays in the tournament and say barely comes in second to a lower rated player while beating that player in both head to head matchups.. what then? Suppose there’s a tie for first between Kramnik and several others.. Are we back to world Champ-by-blitz? This is absurd. If Kramnik’s contract says he legally has to put the title on the line and play in Mexico City so be it, but a blind monkey could resolve these problems better than FIDE.
I agree with his points of view mostly, but I think there can be a compromise.
Why can’t the main tournament be to find the challanger and then, immediatly afterwards, said person fights Kramnik in a match?
The suggestion of holding a match with Kramnik in Mexico immediately after the main tournament is a very clever one.
The problem I see with it is that the challenger would not get much chance to prepare or rest after the tournament and will potentially be out of shape for a match, which would not be fair to the challenger.
nope dont agree with him in general. i agree with some of what he says but in general he is like the rest of the chess world…..Too eager to see world championship matches all the time….people relax if we have a world championship every 2-3 years say it will just make the event that much more exciting and memorable……if we start having them every year on the other hand after 10 years its gonna get monotanous and uninteresting. I seriously believe that looking over the last hundred years in chess things are not so bad. My personal opinion is there is too many people trying to make money in chess and let me give you what i think to these people. YOUR RUINING THE GAME…. Vladimir Kramnik is the world champion…..this stuff to happen in mexico is exciting and I dont want to take anything at all away from those who are likely to compete in Mexico 2007 but this tournament is crap the way it exists. It should be a candidates tournament and I believe Mark knows this. I do understand that the sponsors dont like this…because they want to see a world champion crowned….here we go again that’s the ONLY reason i can think of why that sponsors wouldnt agree. If these people really love chess and money is not the point…..then you will make this a candidate tournament…..Vlad should not have to play!! (After all for instance picture this Vladimir spend a good 3 months preparing and playing Topalov, why should Topalov and Kramnik be set 3 months behind preparing for Mexico 2007 for instance because they are playing each other and everyone else is watching them , studying them, kickin back relaxin drinkin martini’s….i think u get the point. Let’s keep the honor in the title of WORLD CHAMPION. Mark knows very well that the possibilities of fixing results exists….at least he stated that and didnt just exclude it like most people would. This is another reason why this format will just not work. We’ll end up sooner or later seeing a complete flop mess like we heard a few years ago when the GM’s took advantage of that little kid in South American (Needleman). drawing each other and winning against him just to share the prize money that would be equally distributed leaving the kid with nothing. Maybe in a way it was wrong for the kid to be in the super-tournament with those players but these guys if they call themselves professional chess-players better start acting like professionals with the message their sending to the world
Kramnik signed a contract stating that if he wins, he WILL defend his title in Mexico City in 2007. So much for this sleazebag’s words.
Sooner or later the WCC system will give way to a Grand Slam system similar to tennis. The 4 tournaments that come to mind are Linares, Corus, Dortmund and M-Tel Masters.
The Mexicans signed to have FIDE World Championship. Fine, they can have that. But they have no rights to Classical World Championship. If they can’t agree to Mexico City being a candidates event, then the title has to be de-unified and the winner of Mexico will play Kramnik for the unified title. Play with words but that’s what we have to do. In the meanwhile Zhukov can put some serious pressure on Kirsan to accept the match model.
These comments by Mark Crowther have been copied from Mig’s blog by the way. You should credit the source. It was in a discussion, in which many valid points to the contrary were presented. By quoting it out of context you mispresent the content.
In this regard be wiser next time.
nothing is impossible –
everything is possible
so again:
telling it’s not possible to change or cancel before even asking and going for it IS A SHAME.
SHOW THE (alleged) CONTRACT about forcing Kramnik to play AND to defend his unified title within Mexico 2007.
I doubt its existence AND that Topalov knowing the details?!
Maybe, Kramniks manager has agreed wit playing the tournament, but I trust FIDE, that they did not put in the contract clause “fight for UNIFIED world champion”.
BUT:
If the earlier supposed changes / options are really impossible to carry out, why not asking Kramniks management to fight for the unified title for extra money – again maybe more than $US 300.000 has to be paid by FIDE for penalty anyway.
So, in case Kramnik will lose or even win the Mexico tournament, he would lose the chance to get a title fight in 2007.
Addendum:
Why it should be a problem, to bind all Mexico (FIDE) players to challenge the unified w-ch Kramnik in 2008?
Ok, carry out Mexico as “w-“ch as is might be comparable with the following (boxing) szenario:
Once upon a time there have been two boxing organizations A & B, both having one champion.
The agreed to unify and carried out a SINGLE fight of the champions.
champion B wins, and as a result organization A continues to organize its own championship.
Question:
What should the unified champion do?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
With a little bid of flexibiliy and good will, the WC match cycle can be restored, of course, despite the current mess and the legal issues.
I agree with Mark that the Mexico tournament should be played, but it should be the LAST tournament for (FIDE) world chess champion EVER. IF Kramnik agrees to play, that will be great – whatwever the outcome of Mexico, a cycle consisting of candidates tournament, possibly a candidates match between the best two candidates and a title match with the champion can be established immediately afterwards.
Kramnik is good enough to regain his title if he loses it in Mexico, so for the sake of chess he should play (although I doubt he will).
Chess cannot live and be interesting without title matches, its impossible – people want to see 2 persons or two teams, the best of the best, fighting for the title. In football you have a 2-speed WC – first the group stage (equivalent to the FIDE format), then the knock-out stage up to the final.
Of course, chess is not football or tennis so a yearly cycle is impossible to be sustained, but a 2-year one may be possible.
In my opinion the only way is:
let Topalov play in Mexico (instead for Kramnik) and then the winner of the tournament will play against Kramnik for the title. I’m not Kramnik’s supporter, I don’t care about him (or should I say I don’t like him) since his and Garry’s unfair treatment of Shirov, but i can’t see another way to solve this mess. And after this event, please, return to the candidates’ matches! No round-robin tournaments, no rapid games, no blitz games, no suden-death games…
Anonymous said…
The title of classical (match) World Chess Champion (Steinitz…Kramnik) cannot, by definition, be determined by a tournament.
Hello Botvinnik 1948, ha ha!
Truth said…
Kramnik signed a contract stating that if he wins, he WILL defend his title in Mexico City in 2007. So much for this sleazebag’s words.
“The wrong player won a match.” How true.
These comments by Mark Crowther have been copied from Mig’s blog by the way. You should credit the source.
Susan wrote:
Mark Crowther of TWIC (a premier chess information and game website) is a non-bias, non-political and very level headed individual. He offered the following comments on ChessNinja:
She credited the source. What are you talking about?
Few questions for the supporters of the elimination-final-match system: what if we have 10 years of matches as the last one in Elista -a title decided by rapid or blitz. Do you think it really shows who is the top player at the moment? Kramnik would play one match a year and win by draw, rapid or blizz and surely he is the absolute number 1 for the year?
The champ-match cycle is not fair, as it does not expose the players to equal and diverse environment of chess challenge (as the tournaments does). One player challenge for 12 games does not allow accurate measurement of the overall skills of the current champ and his/her challenger, it is too “monotonic, one sided”.
Few other disadvantages: possible speculations with health problems, blames to organisers for biased approach, ultimatums to leave, and so on. And while tournaments also could experience these problems, still it is provided that the champion will be selected, and you will have some constructive finish, not the dead ends of interrupted matches. This is because the success of tournaments depends less on the interests of individual players but of all (competing) players.
Also it does not give the candidates fair opportunities to challenge the title, but give the current champion unfair advantage (playing 1 match to hold the title, while the challenger have to play 3-4 to reach the final match).
Also, the “match” system works for defence-oriented champions to easier hold their title. It plays negative effect on the creativity and further development of chess, because experimentation is sacrificed for security. I suppose a simple statistics would show that across all different styles and tactical skills of candidates more novelties are experimented in tournaments rather in elimination matches.
We live in 21 century, and we want less private, more creative, transparent, fair, and robust system to select the current champ, every year or two. The “match-of-the-titans” system belongs to the past, to the romantic 19th and the cold-war 20th centuries.
World championship events should be designed around the needs of sponsors. I keep reading comments from Crowther and other chessplayers about what sponsors want and need, but I don’t believe for a moment chessplayers have any serious understanding of the needs of sponsors.
Organizers need to go to past, current and potential future sponsors with a portfolio of options and find out from them what it is they want to accomplish from their investment and tailor the event to their needs. I’ve heard far too many chessplayers pontificate on sponsors. The cuurent state of chess is proof chessplayers don’t understand them at all! The dialog between organizers and sponsors obviously needs serious improvement.
Fans are financially the most important factor in chess. Sponsors want fans to follow these events and they want fans to be content. They are not so much interested in player’s or FIDE official’s interests. Ultimately it is the fans and their views that matter. If fans like matches so be it. And we shouldn’t also forget about the democracy. It is very shortsighted to obstinately stick with a wrong plan. This is probably the best chance to change it. Now, not some time in the future.
I agree completely with Mark Crowther.
Guess Kramnik will play in Mexico. He know it is difficult to set up a WC-cycle outside of Fide, guess he will cooperate.
In a field of 8 players it is of course most probable with a new champion in 2007. Kramnik has achived to become the undisputed WC now, a mission accomplished in the history books, he can live with a new champion next year.
Mark Crowther’s comments in general seem very sensible to me.
As you say, Susan, there are serious legal issues with the sponsors. You cannot just opt out on them (nor can Kramnik).
Kramnik says he does not know what he signed up for?? BS. He is just playing for time hoping something will turn up that will let him wriggle out. If Kirsan hasn’t nailed him down 100% to play in Mexico City, then Kirsan is even stupider than I thought.
Kramnik ‘magnanimously’ says he thinks Topalov deserves a place in Mexico City. Ha ha. In reality, Kramnik WANTS them to give Topalov a place because this means FIDE break the contract first, giving Kramnik the excuse he needs to break it.
FIDE are complete numbskulls not including the loser of Elista in Mexico City. This is just so completely brainless.
Unless their preparations were already too far advanced, I think the Mexico City organisers should have absolutely insisted that the loser be included the second they knew about it, and if this was not agreed to, pulled the plug.
The Kramnik worshippers who suggest that Mexico City be made a Candidates Tournament are highly disingenious. This takes us back to Curacao 1962. Who wants that? A tournament is still a tournament with all its known disadvantages, whether it is a World Championship tournament or a Candidates. And why should the defending World Champion have such an advantage (including exhaustion of the Challenger)? He should be required to play in the quarterfinals of a Match System as in Seirawan’s 2002 proposal ‘A Fresh Start’.
Precedents for a Tournament deciding a World Champion are Hague-Moscow 1948 and San Luis 2005.
Some say that Hague-Moscow isn’t a valid comparison because Alekhine was dead, and Kramnik is alive. So what? In 1948 they could have made it a Quarterfinal/Semifinal/Final Match System. And now, currently, the defending World Champion should play in the quarterfinals. So the two situations are virtually equivalent.
The winner of San Luis 2005 has to be recognised as World Champion. Kramnik in effect forfeited his title in 2002 by refusing to grant Kasparov a reasonable means of qualifying to become his challenger. So there is an interregnum 2002-5. Everyone but Kramnik agreed to play in San Luis and recognise the winner as World Champion. If Kramnik refused to play, that’s his problem.
I don’t like Mark’s idea of a Match Tournament, 4 players 6 or 8 cycles. This is very much like the likely rigged Match Tournament of Hague-Moscow 1948. I think in this tournament, as well as what happened, the Soviets may well have had a ‘plan B’ that they didn’t need to put into operation. That is, if Reshevsky had threatened to win the tournament, we might have seen Smyslov, as well as Keres (if he was) throwing games to Botvinnik.
Despite its unsatisfactory nature, I think Mexico City has to be played. Then a system such as I have described near the bottom of the 14 Oct 2006 ‘YOUR voice in the World Championship’ thread should IMMEDIATELY be adopted.
All these problems are of course fundamentally created by Ilyumzhinov’s disastrous FIDE and we will continue to have them while this lot are in charge.
Sponsorship for important matches would come if Kirsan (& co.) was got rid of.
Mark says he can see no way that Ilyumzhinov can be unseated. The only way I can see is to have a revolt and revolution as described in my post near the bottom of the 16 Oct 2006 thread ‘FIDE Solutions’. There may be short-term damage, but sooner or later the Chess World is going to have to grab the bull by the horns. There is no other option.
To the poster who suggested maybe having a World Match Champion and a World Tournament Champion, you may like my suggestion: ‘The establishment of an official ‘Yearly World Cup’ near the bottom of the 14 Oct 2006 ‘YOUR voice in the World Championship’ thread.
the wrong player won the match in Elista … what a mess for FIDE, for the contenders, the one person Topalov/Danailov and last but not least the sponsors of the Mexico City FIDE WCCH tournament …
i’m quite sure, Kramnik will play the tournament (however – only he himself, his manager Hensel aqnd some FIDE officals know the contract Kramnik signed on the outcome of the Elista match against the Topalov/Danailov entity.)
if Kramnik manages to win Mexico City (and a HEALTHY Kramnik has the potential to win it!) – all discussions will be over – and a new – a VERY new candidates cycle will start.
if Kramnik will lose the FIDE WCCH tournament – the schism of chess thrownes will start again – BUT…
if FIDE is wise (maybe it recognizes the very last chance, to make chess a professional sport) – it will schedule once again a “reunification” match – the winner of Mexico City vs. Kramnik (still “classic” champ) – and start a new WCCh cycle with a tournament for the contenders – and a match play for the crown … (e.g. top seven qualifiers + loser of wcch match)
just my two pence (please excuse my poor english today(?)- but im tired – i just came back from a 5 hours rated club chess game … a french with white… my team won, … me too :))
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Without saying he was quoting me, someone anonymous posted in this thread comments I posted elsewhere. I have not participated in this thread. Gene_M
If Kramnik does not play in Mexico then the organisers will be denied the right to say, unequivocably, that it was the world chess championship.
Everyone seems clear on this. Talk about stripping Kramnik of the title are meaningless.
The solutions are
1. Kramnik plays. Not going to happen and probably should not happen.
2.Organisers decide to go ahead and accept that the supertournament is the elimination event. This may happen and Kramnik would probably agree to play the winner in late 2007 or 2008.
Other options just seem to lead to a continued split.
I also think that FIDE should apologise to Kramik over the way the Elista tournamnet was run.
The WC chess championship has had very bad history, partly because of the way it is organized.
a)1948 Keres is not allowed to race Botwinnik (political decision) and Soviet GM’s are playing as the team against Reshevsky and Euwe
b) Bronstein is not allowed to win over Botwinnik in their match
c)next candidates tournaments is so played that Bronstein should not win
d) from 1960 Soviet GM’s are playing as the team against Fischer, Soviet Chess Fed. is organizing the team for analysing Fischer games and preparing noveltys agains him
e) Curacao the 3 winners made the draws between themselves and all SU GM’s played against Fischer, GM Suetin trainer of winner T.Petrosian is writing about in his book
…
there is the split to classical and FIDE champions. Crazy.
Ther are other professional branches of sports where there are not such problems soccer, bridge, tennis etc.
The championship is decided in the tournament in which the champion is taking the part. Everything goes smoothly. There are problem in chess and… boxing, only many federations and titles WBF, WBC…. It is because the champion has the right for the match with the challenger and his position is too much privilegded.
Boxing will solve the problems because there are a lot of people buying the tickets. It will be not so in chess.
To have more fans chess championship has to be dynamic not oligarchic as now. No defending match for the champion.
I think that the top 8 players shall start cup tournament and the winner of the tournament is the champion.
It is proven in football, bridge, volleybal, basketball – everywhere.
Why not follow the checked why.
That what is going in chess is the mess.
Regards
PKF