To: FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov & FIDE World Championship Committee.
Reference is made to the ongoing World Championship cycle.
(ChessBase)
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my decision not to take part in the planned Candidate Matches between March and May 2011.
After careful consideration I’ve reached the conclusion that the ongoing 2008–2012 cycle does not represent a system, sufficiently modern and fair, to provide the motivation I need to go through a lengthy process of preparations and matches and to perform at my best.
Reigning champion privileges, the long (five year) span of the cycle, changes made during the cycle resulting in a new format (Candidates) that no World Champion has had to go through since Kasparov, puzzling ranking criteria as well as the shallow ceaseless match-after-match concept are all less than satisfactory in my opinion.
By providing you with four months notice before the earliest start of the Candidates as well as in time before you have presented player contracts or detailed regulations, I rest assured that you will be able to find an appropriate replacement.
Although the purpose of this letter is not to influence you to make further changes to the ongoing cycle, I would like to take the opportunity to present a few ideas about future cycles in line with our input to FIDE during the December 27th 2008 phone-conference between FIDE leaders and a group of top-level players.
In my opinion privileges should in general be abolished and a future World Championship model should be based on a fair fight between the best players in the World, on equal terms. This should apply also to the winner of the previous World Championship, and especially so when there are several players at approximately the same level in the world elite. (Why should one player have one out of two tickets to the final to the detriment of all remaining players in the world? Imagine that the winner of the 2010 Football World Cup would be directly qualified to the 2014 World Cup final while all the rest of the teams would have to fight for the other spot.)
One possibility for future cycles would be to stage an 8-10 player World Championship tournament similar to the 2005 and 2007 events.
The proposal to abolish the privileges of the World Champion in the future is not in any way meant as criticism of, or an attack on, the reigning World Champion Viswanathan Anand, who is a worthy World Champion, a role model chess colleague and a highly esteemed opponent.
Rest assured that I am still motivated to play competitive chess. My current plan is to continue to participate in well-organised top-level tournaments and to try to maintain the no 1 spot on the rating list that I have successfully defended for most of 2010.
Best regards,
IGM Magnus Carlsen
I was asked by a reporter of Norway’s largest newspaper to comment on this matter. Here was my response:
I am sad that the chess world will not be able to see Magnus in the upcoming World Championship cycle. He is one of the biggest talents in chess in a long time. However, I must respect Magnus’ decision. Only he can make a decision for himself. I am looking forward to seeing many more chess masterpieces from Magnus in the near future.
I will also speak to many of my colleagues and FIDE President Ilyumzhinov about ideas to improve the World Championship format. It is difficult to come up with one idea which everyone will like. Having said that, we still must get input from the top players about this and some other important issues. We must unite and come to a consensus. The world of chess cannot afford more division and partisanship.
Best wishes,
Susan
No body of World Chess can come with a format satisfying the interests of everyone. Carlsen and Kasparov think that they are above chess, which is not correct. Nobody except perhaps Anand would have agreed to play in Sofia last time with those rules. But the pain taken by Anand helped CHESS. So, I think it is wrong from the part of Carlsen to have gone to the extreme step, though I respect it as his decision. Let CHESS prevail above all these issues.
In my honest and objective opinion with no bias, I agree with Carlsen! The current system is very poor and not inline with modern sports. It’s actually very unfair too! The current WC, Anand, could play like crap for a couple years and then just be on good form in the WC match and be WC again. Carlsen’s example of the Football World Cup is a very good one.
The current system is very poor and not inline with modern sports.
There’s that meaningless word “modern” again. You can’t make a bad idea into a good one just by sticking a term like “modern” on it. Carlsen’s letter failed to understand the difference between team sports and individual ones. The reason the 2014 Spanish team won’t be seeded into the World Cup finals is because they’ll be an almost completely different bunch of guys than the ones that won in 2010. Other one-on-one sports do it the same way. You become champ in boxing by beating the champ, not by winning a tournament in which you might actually lose to the last champ but do better against the chaff.
Carlsen doesn’t need Fide.
He’s doing fine without them. If they’re not going to produce a stable, fair and reasonable qualification cycle why on earth would he involve himself with their nonsense? It’s too bad…everyone would love to see how far he can go..Probably the best solution..with Fide politics being what they are…is to have a unofficial Match with whatever WCC there is. A:They’d draw in a heck of a lot more money than Fide could….B:wouldn’t have to pay the cut Fide Banks. Though I doubt any WCC would have the guts. Sad, this Worlds Chess affairs.
I think this is probably wise of Carlsen.
I do think, that in order to maintain the prestige of the Chess World Championship, World Champion privileges should be maintained. Of course, these privileges should not include the candidates not being sure at any point on how things will evolve. Credibility and reputation are careful things.
As a chess fan I hope Kirsan will nominate Morozevich as a replacement, if he is willing.
Indeed, I agree it would be detrimental to Carlsen to have to focus on too much chess politics, as if that had a greater importance (I think it is the small village mayor syndrome).
Hopefully the next cycle will be clear cut from start to finish, and then no doubt we’ll see a well prepared Carlsen, so looking on that this is good news.
Now let’s see;-
Post; ‘Back to One officially,for Anand’
“Carlsen is very very good,no doubt.But let him show character by winning the candidates first – but if he does not the same excuses will surface again – blame Fide,blame the format etc etc
Anon
Nov 1 2010 9:43 am CDT
‘Anon’ saw it coming! didn’t he?
Carlsen is a young brat. Let him stick to modelling. No system is perfect. He goes beyond his brief,when he says that the privileges of the World Champ should be curtailed or abolished. Anand went thru several travails,but triumphed by sheer ability,hard work and will power. Carlsen is too young to have the fortitude to go through the grind. He just can’t hack it for the moment. On a one to one match up, Kramnik or Anand will eat him for breakfast.If he gets stopped in the candidates,he loses his aura! So best make excuses and wait it out. Once Anand is no more WC ( age is a factor!) twerp Carlsen can try and sneak back!Shame! Carlsen may break 3000,but apart from the few rabid fans,who cares. He is just another great ‘coffeehouse’ player,but no chess great! It’s like some top women tennis players saying ” oh! I’m the computer numero uno,but I just don’t seem to be able to win the Slams!
Oldsalt.
Oldsalt….are you drunk or something? The Candidates qualifications are more of a crap shoot than actual matches. A very sad way to pick a challenger, and thats Carlsens point..thats not a good way to determine a challenger..but on the other hand..great payday for outsiders who do well….I can name 3!!!! FIDE WCC in the past 10 or so years we never heard from again after they won the title. IS that what we really want? If thats the case…play the lottery. Carlsen is correct.
12:15
Team sport of individual sport does not have anything to do with it…
Take tennis, for instance. It’s not as if the reigning Wimbledon champion automatically gets to defend his title from last year. He has to play his way to the final each year in order to keep the title.
Or, take table tennis, where they actually have a world championship. Each year each of the participants have to play themselves to the final in order to become a world champion. There’s no “walk over” system for the reigning world champion there either.
Also… an individual athlete can also become a completely different athlete from one year to another, just like teams can. I don’t think there’s much of a difference.
As for boxing, it’s a bit of a special example, since it takes a toll on your body in a way which chess, tennis or table tennis does not. And there’s a limit to the number of full length matches you can go within a year without excerting damage to your body. So, in boxing it’s not possible to organize enough matches within a year to actually decide the world championship in any other way than the way in which it’s currently done…
So, I don’t think your arguments are valid here.
Surprise, surprise. Actions have consequences, and the FIDE election is no exception. Who believes this would have occurred had Karpov, who Carlsen very publicly supported (uniquely, I think, among the elite players who otherwise seemed to hedging their bets), prevailed? And remember that a fair, robust, match-play system for the championship was a key element of Karpov’s platform.
Face facts. For 15 years, Ilyumzhinov has worked steadily to erode the championship. Apparently wanting to be unencumbered by the natural and rightful influence of a clear world champion, he has strived to demean and diminish the game’s highest title. FIDE under Ilyumzhinov minted as many world champions in one six-year period as there were in the first 60 years of the title. Many view Ilyumzhinov’ behavior in this regard as wildly erratic; viewed properly, it is quite single-minded. In short, rather than the idealic view that many of us unrealistically maintain, Magnus is declining a chance at something of greatly diminished value. Beyond that, of course, close association with FIDE, the institution, now hardly brings luster. A recent headline from the largest circulation daily in the UK is not atypical: “Kirsan Ilyumzhinov has dragged chess into ill repute.” (Guardian 9/30/10). There is no need to recite the myriad of reasons that is the case, but events of recent months have only added to that litany of embarrassments. And if everyone acknowledges that FIDE scares off prospects of commercial sponsorship for chess, what do you suppose is the natural solution to the problem?
Kasparov set an example of ultimately being content to be the “People’s Champion” rather than the FIDE Champion. While the circumstances are different, Magnus is well within reach of achieving the same status. In his letter, he graciously states that there is rough parity among today’s small handful of chess elite. Among those, however, only Magnus shows regular signs of significant additional potential to take chess to an even higher level. “Before he is done,” Kasparov says, “Carlsen will have changed our ancient game considerably.” If Magnus accomplishes what he has set out to do, and does so with continued integrity and honor, that will be reward enough, although others will come. Does anyone believe that being handed a laurel by Kirsan Ilyumzhinov adds so much more?
— c.a.
Surprise, surprise. Actions have consequences, and the FIDE election is no exception. Who believes this would have occurred had Karpov, who Carlsen very publicly supported (uniquely, I think, among the elite players who otherwise seemed to hedging their bets), prevailed? And remember that a fair, robust, match-play system for the championship was a key element of Karpov’s platform.
Face facts. For 15 years, Ilyumzhinov has worked steadily to erode the championship. Apparently wanting to be unencumbered by the natural and rightful influence of a clear world champion, he has strived to demean and diminish the game’s highest title. FIDE under Ilyumzhinov minted as many world champions in one six-year period as there were in the first 60 years of the title. Many view Ilyumzhinov’ behavior in this regard as wildly erratic; viewed properly, it is quite single-minded. In short, rather than the idealic view that many of us unrealistically maintain, Magnus is declining a chance at something of greatly diminished value. Beyond that, of course, close association with FIDE, the institution, now hardly brings luster. A recent headline from the largest circulation daily in the UK is not atypical: “Kirsan Ilyumzhinov has dragged chess into ill repute.” (Guardian 9/30/10). There is no need to recite the myriad of reasons that is the case, but events of recent months have only added to that litany of embarrassments. And if everyone acknowledges that FIDE scares off prospects of commercial sponsorship for chess, what do you suppose is the natural solution to the problem?
Kasparov set an example of ultimately being content to be the “People’s Champion” rather than the FIDE Champion. While the circumstances are different, Magnus is well within reach of achieving the same status. In his letter, he graciously states that there is rough parity among today’s small handful of chess elite. Among those, however, only Magnus shows regular signs of significant additional potential to take chess to an even higher level. “Before he is done,” Kasparov says, “Carlsen will have changed our ancient game considerably.” If Magnus accomplishes what he has set out to do, and does so with continued integrity and honor, that will be reward enough, although others will come. Does anyone believe that being handed a laurel by Kirsan Ilyumzhinov adds so much more?
c.a.
Chess is not football. So it is not easy to compare. Moreover, historically, the reigning champion always had an advantage when defending his title.
Having said that, a compromise could be the following. Take the ideas of Magnus but still allow the reigning World Champion to avoid having to qualify in the first stage, the tournament of the best top players. The reigning champion would participate only at the next stages (after the qualifying tournament of the best players) but he would not be reserved a place in the finale (yes, that is a too big advantage). So, this could be one compromise.
I still believe that the reigning champion is entitled to have an advantage, a smaller one than before but still he should have an advantage.
By adopting this idea, the reigning world champion would still have to fight in several matches the qualified opponents of the tournament of the best players.
I think that even Magnus would accept this compromise even though it is slightly different than what he has in mind.
I hope mercurial Carlsen gets support from other top chess players on this well-meant boycott. Some wise fool suggested that chess is not team sport but an individual affair. Tennis is an individual affair and there are no champion priviledges. Modernize the system, I say
The World Chess Championship system today is meaningless.
today there are tournaments with Carlsen or without Carlsen; the same as was with Kasparow; nobody cares about Anand, who trailed the Rating List for years; Anand may be a nice guy, but he is not the big show in town like Carlsen; Carlsen doesn’t need a World Title based on stupid Mini-Matches; he’s the best and he knows it.
I support his move to point out to the stupid FIDE system.
He’s the only one today who can afford to do so; everybody else would be ignored.
but now FIDE knows that their WCC Cycle has lost ANY attraction with Carlsen backing out….
However, in tennis there is no world champion. Whoever wins the most Grand Slam the season is considered the greatest, though through that they will stand high in the ratings. However, the careers of chess players are much longer, and the attributes through which a young tennis player wins are not the same and how an old tennis player, past 25, wins, the older must use their experience since the younger players will be more physically fit.
(As a total aside, I am now focusing on reading Towers of Midnight, the 13th book of Wheel of Time, and reading these, and waiting for the next book, has been a major part of my life, been doing that over half of my 30+ life, regardless of speaking Finnish and not English as a first language, so I am somehow preoccupied ;))
Chess is Chess,not Tennis. It would be absolutely ridiculous to ask the incumbent WC to play a string of opponents to decide whether or not he remains WC. A candidates tourney is fair ( though the number of games is a matter for further consideration ). The winner of the Candidates faces the WC. Any other format makes it a lottery for the WC and diminishes his position (and diminishes chess too ). Carlsen needs to have his head examined for even stating that the privileges of the WC should be abolished. Behind that young hero facade he is just a nasty little boy!
Carlsen ( of course his father is behind all this )is just trying to cause dissension & discord among the chess elite. Even the truly awesome Bobby Fischer eventually bit the bullet and went through the candidates like knife through butter.Instead of saying the truth ” I’m not ready for the candidates yet;I’m afraid I’ll lose” he is trying to do a Kasparov. Perhaps get some backing and tell the world that actually he is the WC. What a laugh! Grow up Carlsen and show some grit.
While I disagree heartily with Magnus concerning the abolishing of World Champion privileges (which to me is a historical right and something that is utterly unlike any team sport), I don’t think it’s fair to brand the man as a “brat” or “nasty.” My amusement at his modeling aside, he’s a fine player and extremely well-behaved. I think he’s earned the right to make some suggestions. Let’s hear more from the rest of the chess elite and see what shakes out.
Yes, the World Championship Cycle is clearly a problem. The Match system of the old days showed who were the best players. Not this 2 game matches and tie-break, or wacky world championship tournament.
6 game match semi’s
12 match qua
24 match for World Title
they had that before and it worked, what the problem ?
Also to note the past has shown all players who have gone against FIDE – Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov at certain times, have not ended well and failed to create any sucessful fair system outside fide.
And did boycotting FIDE like Fischer help chess ? no.
Its certainly a big problem with the current people in power running things badly
I think Magnus is playing a long term game here, right now he may be the world’s favourite player, numer uno is live ratings but he knows that Anand, Kramnik and topalov are too strong in match plays due to their many experiences. Match play for World title also involves lots of politics/pshychological maneuveras including terms/discussions with FIDE, opponent, sponsorship etc etc. and he thinks he is not well prepared in any of those fronts. He knows that by just being the elite player in chess won’t win him the title and in next 4-5 years Kramnik, Anand and Topalov would surely be waning in terms of chess strength, the kid knows this will happen. Magnus might be critized but he is tryiing to learn the ‘GAME’ afterall kasparov is his guide. Though I would have loved to see him play against Anand, Kramnik at their best. Even Anand went through various qualifying formats before being WC. Looking at history of chess championships, every worthy champion had to go through the grinding process before reaching the finals. Carlsen would never know what it feels like to win the title if he doesn’t go through that ‘grinding’. Interestingly I see a few points raised for fairness like tournamnet format as in football which Carlens likes and is quite good at winning them as well. My take on this would be, Carlsen chickend out when the world was looking forward to him dethroning Anand and proving he is the best! Well I appreciate Magnus for his long term plan (world title) and short term (Elo live ratings.
I totally agree…the knockout format is inefficient. It produced World Champions such as Khalifman, Ponomoariov and Kasimdzhanov…None of which has ever been #1…ever! It frankly makes me sick. bring back the candidate’s matches…and bring back VALUE to the Word’s Championship!
The world champion is world champion until he is defeated in a world championship match. If Carlsen wants changes to how the challenger is picked, fine. But to ask the world champion to qualify for the right to earn the title he already possesses is absurd. Should that become the case, we’d really have no world champion at all.
He will drop FIDE for SPICE.
Magnus the chicken. He is just not ready but can’t admit it. But what is preposterous is him asking that the WC’s privileges be curtailed. From time immemorial one man qualified to challenge the WC. In times past the WC could practically choose his challenger! Carlsen can harp on being comp # 1, just like Topalov did. Kasparov caused a split in the chess world ( too big an ego ),but at least he had come thru fire against Karpov. Pipsqueak Carlsen trying to do the same? Respect for Carlsen and his ilk has gone down several notches.
Please: It is not correct to say the three FIDE champs were not deserved champs! They played strongest and hardest tournaments and won them. Pono f.e. was twice Olympic champion and almost won the big world chess cup.
More respect, please!
okay
Carlsen looks tough in the ads! But he is not so tough after all. Running away like a squealing pig!
Carlsen looks mean and nasty in his ads! Now he has shown that he is actually mean and nasty!. After all, trying to pull down the prestige of the World Champion ( whosoever he may be )by asking for his privileges to be curtailed,is just not on.
Carlsen proposes a 8 to 10 player WC tourney!! Just the type of tourney that Anand won and which format was heavily criticized. But that was a one off to bridge the then existing confusion. The present candidates is very much better than a crap shoot tourney to select the challenger or WC. Wake up Carlsen & tie your laces.Be a man!
As for Anand all respect for him to have uncomplainingly just played the game and won them all,whatever format.
Unfortunately for the general public,we have to see yet again the usual suspects – Kramnik, Topalov,perhaps Aronian.
Ok, sadly we will not see the current no. 1 player (on the live rating list) take part in the qualifier to the WCC match. This is clear.
But let’s face it, only four games are far from enough in a match to decide a champion contender, if not the difference is very big in strength between players, wich is not the case here. That means chance is the biggest factor and not actual strength of the players to select a winner. A better qualifying system can easily be devised that is less due to chance, more fair for all participants, and exciting for everyone to watch.
What could such a challanger system look like? I think a tournament is not such a bad idea, if it is to pick out one or a small group of contenders. Let us say that a round robin was played and that the winner was the contender in a match consisting of at least ten games against the champ. Alternatively there could be a semifinal system with matches, but the final WC match, champ vs challenger, is too good to drop for various reasons (historical, media, fairness).
Until we have a sufficiently fair and unbiased WCC system designed to pick out the best chess player FIDE is not doing a particularly good job, which means that the best player will most probably not be the WCC.
/I. Lind
Carlsen has been No.1 in ratings; otherwise nobody would have taken any notice of him.
A tournament with top players will give us a winner like any other tournament but not a world champion. A world champion should be resilient, physically and mentally fit, knowledgeable in all phases of the game.
The Chess community wants to see probing of each other over several games in Championship title.
Let the period of World Champion be reduced to 2 years. I suggest a alternative method for deciding World Champion: Let there be a tournament wherein 5 top players are joined by reigning champion; further matches among them decide top 2 players and they will fight it out over 12 games.
I am not a fan of Carlsen but he is right.
The system is ridiculos – 5 years eliminations qualifications why not 10 years ?
The proper solution was tested in 1947. The match-tournament 4 rounds which gave the champion.
Only one modifcation; the match points shall be counted not the small.
Range of the champion title has nth to the range of the chess.
Playing in Kazan where climate is difficult is the additional stupidity.
Hey Carlsen,try the SPICE Cup,since the Candidates tourney is much to spicy for coffeehouse players like you.
You do not want the WCC to be some sort of swiss tournament!
The challenger must earn the title by proving that his understanding, skill, creativity and psychology is superior to that of the champion and no one else.
There are several top level prestigious tournaments in other formats and I see no sense in turning WCC into another Linares …