FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov recently announced at my press conference (at the Dresden Olympiad right after the FIDE Congress) about the new proposed cycle for the World Championship. Some players seem to like it and some do not. Here is the link to a summary of the FIDE Congress.
Do you agree with FIDE President Ilyumzhinov?
The problem with returning to the old system with Zonal, Interzonal, Candidates matches, and World Championship match is there is not enough interest in sponsoring some of the matches. In addition, a three / four year cycle is way too long.
The complaint about the knockout system is many of the elite players will not compete and a two game knockout format leaves too much to chance.
The problem with the 8-player double round tournament format is it does not please the die hard fans for the traditional match play.
So what is the solution?
The biggest problem is that they are changing the already ongoing cycle. THATS the problem, not the format.
I agree. The Zonal, Interzonal, Candidates matches system is/was OK. The problem is the “change” in a sensless way.
I like knockout. It’s fun. Why not settle with chess boxing?
The chess world needs a new president. Until that happens, sane decisions can not be expected and hence our discussions are irrelevant.
Chess should clean up its act by not accepting a rouble from the Kalmykians. They need the money themselves.
Instead, it could call on the Susan Polgar Chess Foundation, which is there I understand to promote chess – a noble and selfless act in my opinion.
Do away with the World Championship and mimic tennis – strong tournaments with Elo ratings changing after every event. If a sponsor wants to put on a match with two of the top players, it’s their money. The problem is if the players have 6 months to prepare, they will probably not be the top two when the match starts. Have players use court steno-type muzzle microphones and give stream of consciousness analysis when they are not on the move. Give the players some media coaching. Most top players are dull as day old toast when talking about their games. Hire Larry Christiansen as a media consultant to teach them how to describe chess action! Get some high level Hollywood talent to produce movies and TV shows about chess related themes! Make a chess-battle videogame featuring some good looking babes and guys with a “strip chess” motif. If you win a game against one of the babes/guys, they have to take off an article of clothing. Watch the young male players’ Elo’s soar!
The world championship cycle was good from 1964 to the last world championship match between Karpov and Kasparov. Then Kasparov broke with FIDE and the collapse started.
The old system (Zonal, Interzonal, Candidates matches) is the best and most fair of all.
There have never been problems with sponsors in the past,unlike today with this stupid WorldCup cycle where even for a candidates-final Kamsky-Topalov there is no sponsor…
Kirsan needs to have the venue changed to the International Space Station. The winner of the match goes home via the space shuttle. The loser goes home via the airlock.
This is more exciting than chess boxing.
Kasparov is not allowed as we all know his hot air will keep him in orbit permanently.
“There have never been problems with sponsors in the past,…”
LOL. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. There were MANY financing and scheduling problems, long before the 1990’s.
I thought Nunn’s proposal at Chessbase quite decent. The top 8 by elo–discounting the current champion — play the double round robin tournament, a candidates tournament, and the winner plays the champion in a match next year. This is very simple and straightforward, which means it can actually work on the long run. Of course there is some kind of weighting for activity, so that the system does not encourage one to achieve a high rating and then sit on it.
It may be argued that such a process were only open to the elite, however you only need to win so many games to join the elite. Quite frankly, if a player wants to become world champion, they can get a 2750+ elo first, which is what being in the top 9 requires these days. As much as everyone would wish to get everything now instantly and only for themselves, these days, I don’t think a player has any claim to challenge the world champion, regardless of single tournament successes, unless they are at the very top by the one reliable indicator of playing strength that is the elo. Chess sells better when at the top the elite play, that you have names someone recognises.
I can understand the move by Kirsan in that everything cannot be just changed immediately. There is a current system going on, and it cannot be immediately abandoned for Nunn’s suggestion. So the objective is to take the current cycle and adapt it into the Nunn suggestion, to make the winners of the current process take part in the double round robin.
I do think it takes things a bit too far, I would only guarantee the winners of the world cup and the grand prix (or was it grand slam) a place in and take the rest by the ratings. As it is, there is still the feeling of a constant transition without ever getting there, though it is illusionary since now there actually is a single champion, and it is clear there should be one elite qualification tournament, however the participants are chosen.
Chess is simply not big enough to sustain million euro qualification cycles. Having a simple and good championship system might take it there yet, a system that sells to audiences, but it is not there now. The new fide proposal is an improvement, though it is still very difficult to understand how people who would participate are chosen (so Morozevich, Carlsen and Ivanchuk have to top the list or win the world cup to get in, when they have all had such a general performance these past years to warrant automatic entry, as seen by their elos!). I think fide could cut corners a bit, from marketing perspective I think it is better that the qualification tournament is a fresh thing, there is no need to guarantee Kamsky, Topalov and Anand outside of their ratings or the champion defending his place in a match. The loser of Kamsky-Topalov does not need a special priviledge, and neither does Kasimdzanov, ponomariov, khalifman, rubinstein, morphy etc… Leko, Kramnik Aronian and co should have a place if they play well enough to maintain or improve their ratings, in that case Morozevich, Carlsen and Ivanchuk should defeat these players in order to defeat Anand or Topalov, whichever is then champion. (And I feel disinclined to include Kamsky to the previous lot until he shows that he can play.)
This is too easy. Oblige the title holder to defend his title once or twice yearly against one of the other top five players in a 15 round match, winner take the title, champ retains in case of a draw. Ivanchuk, Topalov and Carlson would get the chance they deserve this decade and the title holder would prove dominance without a doubt.
Ah, a mispelling near the end there, I will correct so that what I mean is clear.
If players like Kramnik, Leko, Aronian, currently second-tier players at the live ratings, play actively and maintain their rating, then they should make their way to the candidates tournament.
The same for Morozevich, Carlsen, Ivanchuk, who are first-tier players at the moment. In order for one of these players to challenge the champion, it is fitting that they defeat the second-tier players in the tournament, and also each other so that one of them chosen. Whoever emerges at the top at the candidates tournament is then automatically deserving of the right to challenge the champion.
And of course, Anand and Topalov (or Kamsky) play for world championship before this. Topalov has much greater achievements thusfar, so his challenge is by far more interesting and more likely a tougher fight for Anand, but of course champion is who wins matches.
Again you are missing the point. There can’t be any changes to the already ONGOING cycle!!!
They can make changes for the next cycler, but not the cycle that is already running.
That’s like if they would say (after 8 games have already been played) that Anand vs. Kramnik is not for World Championship.
I don’t know if the last was for me, or in general, but I think the change here is specifically designed so that those involved in the current cycle do not suffer for it. If they win what they are trying to win, they will stay in the race for the world championship.
I am quite certain that people may be unaware that these changes may be necessary in order to have any qualification process. Especially with the world economy as it is, there is not loose millions of money for complicated qualification cycles, especially if they attract no public interest for the sponsors and bring about endless squabbling, which is what often can happen with these things. Just recently there were open letters over law suits in the current cycle, what sponsor would want to touch something like that. I would not sponsor a sport where people cannot get along outside of courtrooms. Then there was the cancellation of the Dubai tournament, generally things need to go pretty bad for this kind of thing to happen. It is unheard of in any other sport or organisation that the president spends his own money in its standard operations, let alone such vast sums, though of course these grand prix tournaments do not pay vast sums. And this with things becoming better for chess that they have been in ten years. It would be important for everyone involved to understand that whoever is champion in chess, it is beneficial for everyone that a good system is set in place, and if the current system is too heavy to attract legitimate sponsors, then it should be modified in order to have a system that works.
I get the feeling there is a lack of sponsors and organisers, this is why changes may need to be done, in order to have anything at all. (I do not have a stake in chess, and can still write to tell what I think they should do for their own benefit.)
They don’t suffer from it? Are you serious???
When they signed up they were promised that the GP winner will be only a match away from the title match. Now they will be a tournament away. And why stop there? In the middle of the Candidates tournament they may as well decide that they will have to play 3 more tournaments. Why not change it again and again???
Also before the cycle it was said that GP or World Cup are the only way to fight for the title. So of course they signed up, and as consequences left out some other tournaments (where the players could earn much more money than in GP). But now they find out thatz they could have qualified by ratings!!! So no loses for them, huh???
Changing the already ongoing competition is unfair and has nothing to do with seroious competition. As I said, it’s like if they would in the middle of the Anand vs. Kramnik match say that it is not World Championship, but just a sparring match. You just can’t do that.
I cannot argue with you on that. This commitment, that after Anand vs. Topalov (or Kamsky) there is a candidates final match with the GP winner against the WC winner, this should be honoured. Neither does there seem sense to not do so, gathering that both the GP and WC will be organised. Not only is keeping commitments fair, as long as they are reasonable, this is something any potential partner or sponsor will value.
I do not know why there is urgency to change the system so quickly that this would not go through first. I think people should stress this point. It is good to find the right way to do things, but it is also important to do the right things in a right way.
After all the situation is that the double round robin format is what is wanted, and fide has decided to steer towards it. However, if they continue the GP & WC plan through for this candidacy, they can begin with the new plan without seeding any match losers etc in it, but they can present sponsors and organisers with a candidacy tournament that has 8 of the 9 best players on the planet, and this will be interesting for them.
So in principle I agree with Fide about the new tournament format, but agree with you that it must be started fresh when the current cycle has finished.