|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
Mig Greengard is the man behind the fine chess website www.ChessNinja.com. On 2006/04/14 Mig announced the upcoming 2006/09 Kramnik-Topalov title match to his readers. In the initial five words of Mig's first sentence there were two errors (italics mine): "Good news on the unification front from the FIDE presidential board meeting in Al Ain City in the Arab Emirates." Can you spot both errors? First, this is not good news. This is a potential tragedy for chess. Second, this match will not unify the World Chess Champion (WCC) title, because the title has never yet been split. The only thing that will be made whole by this match is Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's control of the WCC title. WHY THIS MATCH IS A TRAGEDY
FOR CHESS
Now with this Kramnik-Topalov match, Kirsan in effect wants to end the historically gloried concept of a "Match" WCC title. Kirsan wants to replace it with a new kind of title, a less prestigious "Tournament" WCC title. Topalov could have simply declined to go along with Kirsan's plan. Topalov could have publicly pressured both Kirsan and Kramnik.
Instead, Topalov locked arms with Kirsan against Kramnik, and refused to play Kramnik at all (a blackballing of Kramnik) unless Kramnik signed a FIDE-written contract to terminate the Match WCC title. Kramnik had to relent. The signed contracts now mean a 2007 FIDE tournament to be held in Mexico will choose a Tournament WCC. Kirsan will present the winner as simply the WCC, hoping everyone will ignore the distinction between this mere "Tournament" WCC and the historically gloried "Match" WCC. Sadly, Kirsan's hopes will be gratified by a public that is unconcerned about details, and which is hungry for the illusion of reunification. Then in 2009 another tournament will crown another new WCC, then again in 2011, and so on every two years. The tournament format greatly increases the likelihood that a different player will be crowned as WCC in successive cycles, as compared to the traditional match format (*1). Thus a decade from now we could have quickly added perhaps another four names to the once venerated list of WCCs, unless we do something now to defend against that outcome. I believe making the distinction between Tournament versus Match WCC titles is the most plausible defense. Topalov apparently believes there is no difference in prestige between a Tournament WCC versus a Match WCC (*2). Or Topalov believes it will be better for chess to have FIDE, and thus Kirsan, more fully in control. Topalov sees this a means of unification. I strongly disagree with Topalov on both these points. LET US DO THE MATH
As for the lower prestige for Tournament versus Match WCCs, that can never be more than a matter of personal taste and opinion. But the negative effects from Topalov aiding Kirsan will become starkly apparent in the near future. Eventually the chess public will notice how fast the list of WCCs has became bloated by these bi-annual FIDE tournaments. Judging from tournament histories, some of those names will seem inferior, thus dragging down the whole list a bit. These phenomena will spawn dissatisfaction in the chess public. I predict that before 2020, FIDE will be pressured to return to using a match to determine the WCC title holder. When the return to a match does occur, it will constitute a rebuke to Topalov, who made it possible for Kirsan to perpetrate this diminution of the WCC title. By then the damage will already have been done, unless the distinction between the Tournament versus Match WCC titles takes root. CAN THE USCF HELP PROTECT THE WCC TITLE?
A new list of WCCs could be started, one dedicated to successive Tournament WCCs. This distinction would protect the list of Match WCCs from the bloat that will inevitably occur otherwise. The traditional list of Match WCCs would go into stasis, into dormancy, until the future brings the next WCC match. People could argue about which list is more prestigious. As long as the two titles are separate, debates over prestige will be harmless. Even if the USCF E.B. were to share our preference for the match format, the E.B. would think my resolution suggestion is absurd. One feeling would be that the USCF has no moral clout with the other FIDE affiliates around the globe. Largely true, and thinking that way only makes it truer. But this would miss the point of the resolution. The purpose of the resolution would be to give future chess historians some occurrence they can use to set history right. History can surprise us by giving small incidents more influence than was expected. For instance, in the 1800's Elijah Williams said during a mere dinner toast that he considered Howard Staunton to be the "Champion of Chess". That little remark has been used to justify silly claims like Staunton was the first WCC, and that Paul Morphy never really proved he was the best player alive. All this despite the fact Staunton lost 6 matches to 5 people during his prime of 1843-1853 (including to Anderssen +1-4=0, whom Morphy thrashed later that decade). Silly though the claims are, they continue to fool and persuade a few people even to this day. So the USCF resolution could give needed ammunition to future chess historians who try to put things right. A LOOHOLE FOR MATCH WCC TITLE MATCHES Even if miraculously passed by the E.B., I expect that my proposal for a distinct "Tournament WCC" title would fail due to a loophole. The FIDE rules allow the 2007 FIDE tournament winner, supposedly simply the new WCC, to invite and play a match challenger before the 2009 tournament. My prediction is that such extra matches may become common, as a way for the champion to use the WCC title for making money during the short time he owns it. This creates the plausible potential for new WCCs to be crowned at a rate of one per year. Players could make it to the Match WCC list without defeating the previous Match WCC. We better establish a computer database to track the many WCCs that will be crowned. THE WCC TITLE HAS NEVER YET BEEN SPLIT There is much more that can be written on this topic than what needs to be written. Where possible I will opt for brevity. I want to start this section with the fact that Kramnik became the new WCC champion when he defeated Kasparov in 2000/11. Since there are a few people who still argue against this fact, I will establish the reasons why the fact stands true. Nigel Short won FIDE's championship cycle (of zonals-interzonals-candidates' matches) to earn a challenge against Kasparov for Kasparov's WCC title. This match took place as normal, except that Kasparov handled the financial negotiations, and FIDE was not paid a percentage. On this bureaucratic basis, FIDE declared Kasparov was no longer the WCC. Nobody took FIDE seriously. Only the Shirov incident of 1998 casts even the slightest doubt that Kasparov was still the WCC in 2000. There is much that could be retold about the egregious financial treatment Shirov suffered during the candidates' matches of 1998 (run by the now defunct World Chess Council, not by FIDE). But ultimately nothing changes the crucial fact that Kasparov agreed to play Shirov, and it was only Shirov who rejected the match (Shirov demanded a prize fund larger than the $600,000 the sponsors were offering). Thus it became reasonable for Kasparov to accept the next sponsorship offer, and/or to defend against the next best challenger. Braingames offered to sponsor a Kasparov-Kramnik title match in 2000. Critics must agree that, in terms of chess skill, Kramnik thoroughly proved his worthiness as the WCC challenger by defeating Kasparov for the title. So there is no argument yet that the WCC title has ever been split. FIDE'S ABSURD ULTIMATUM TO KRAMNIK IN 2005 In 2004/10 Kramnik successfully defended his WCC title against top challenger Peter Leko. A few months later FIDE (meaning Kirsan) gave Kramnik and ultimatum. FIDE told Kramnik it would work extra hard to strip Kramnik of his title unless Kramnik agreed to: [1] Defend his
title again promptly only one year later in 2005 at San Luis. Demand [1] reminds us of the raw deal imposed by FIDE on Smyslov (1958) and Tal (1961), which was promptly discontinued when people saw how ugly it was. Demand [2] is wildly unprecedented. The emergency WCC tournament organized by FIDE in 1948 is no precedent for Demand [2], nor for Demand [3]. So the chess public owes Kramnik a nod of thanks for his attempts to defend the WCC title by rejecting these demands by FIDE. The absurdity of FIDE demands of Kramnik were amply demonstrated when a few months later FIDE worked hard to arrange the needed Kramnik-Topalov match. Kramnik still holds the WCC title, else this match would be irrelevant to FIDE. Despite all this,
not everyone saw FIDE's behavior as inappropriate.
Susan Polgar is great for chess, and she has earned some influence. So I was disappointed to read statements Polgar made about the WCC title shortly before the start of the San Luis 2005 tournament that Topalov won. Polgar encouraged us to strip Kramnik of his title. She urged the world's elite grandmasters against cooperating with any more WCC title matches involving Kramnik. Here is the quotation from her www.ChessCafe.com interview: 2. Do you consider this to be a legitimate World Championship? [SP] Yes. This will end all the controversies about a legitimate World Champion. 3. Is Kramnik still the legitimate World Champion? [SP] To my mind, Kramnik is no longer World Champion. (*4) 4. Should the winner of the FIDE World Championship in San Luis, Argentina play Kramnik to unify the title or should he/she be crowned as the outright World Champion? [SP] Absolutely not! The winner of this tournament is the outright World Champion and that winner should not play Kramnik. But why? Why is Kramnik supposedly no longer the WCC, and on what day did he lose his hard won title? Why should Topalov refuse a WCC reunification match with Kramnik? Polgar's answers were contained in the rest of her answer to question 3. Her justification for stripping Kramnik of his WCC title rests on the two points she made: [1] Bobby Fischer
lost his title without being defeated by a challenger, so the same can
happen to Kramnik. I can neither agree nor disagree with Polgar as to the quality of her justification, because I can find no argument in these points. I could agree with her points, but they make no argument. (In fairness to Polgar, her comments were verbal answers she had to generate with only seconds to consider her wording. They were not from an essay polished for publication.) Perhaps the argument Polgar wanted to make was that chess badly needs the unity and stability that can be provided only by having one preeminent world organization. This need is so great that it outweighs the right Kramnik has to the WCC title he duly won and duly defended. It never outweighed Kasparov's right to the title because (A) Kasparov was considered to be a stronger player than Kramnik is, and (B) before 2005 FIDE's annual championship tournaments were sad affairs ruined by Kirsan's love of 2-game candidates' matches and short time controls. The principles that underlay the above argument are abhorrent to me. Kramnik's rights would be sacrificed for group expedience. Polgar's statements seem less an argument than a voiced desire. The ugly precedent that using these principles would establish would come back to haunt the chess world someday. Such a precedent can never be undone. The bottom line is that if Kramnik defeats Topalov, then Topalov's name is not to be added to the list of WCCs that includes Steinitz. Kramnik's name will stay on that list even if he loses. History will show this a decade from now. Regardless, it is important for us each to record our assessments of whole situation before the Kramnik-Topalov match begins, for after we know the winner our perceptions will be tainted. Many in the chess public have wished for this Kramnik-Topalov WCC title match, and have wanted FIDE to regain control of the WCC title and format. I believe the applicable cliché here is – Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. Gene Milener FOOTNOTES *1: FIDE took over the WCC cycle in 1948. From 2006 back to 1948 is 58 years. In those 58 years 9 different players have held the WCC title: Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik. 58 years divided by 9 champs is a mean of 6.4 years per champ. *2: Maybe some tournament players will agree to help each other in alternating years, by throwing certain games, and by refusing sensible draws to tire out the competition with 100 move marathons. It would not be the first time the inherent flaw in tournaments was exploited by collusion among players (as Bobby Fischer well knows). *3: Some have argued that in 2000 Kasparov defended against only the number two challenger Kramnik, instead of against Shirov. But that argument conveniently ignores the fact that Shirov refused Kasparov's match invitation, complaining the $600,000 prize fund was insufficient. There was much more to this episode, but ultimately Kasparov was willing to play, and it was Shirov who refused (just as it was Linares winner Anand's more honorable refusal that gave Shirov his chance in the first place). *4: Quoted here is Susan Polgar's entire answer to question 3:
Web Addresses: http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/archives/2006/04/ http://www.chesscafe.com/text/polgar40.pdf Copyright Gene Milener 2006/06/01 Index of All Chessville Editorials
|
The
|
|||
|
|||||
Politically
chess is a mess. We do not have much good going for us politically,
but we do have an extremely prestigious WCC title with a history reaching
back to the 1800's.
Topalov
could have pressured Kirsan to have the FIDE tournament winner earn a
challenge match against the sitting WCC. Simultaneously, Topalov could
have pressured Kramnik to give control of the WCC matches back to FIDE, if
Kirsan agreed to the whole plan too.
As
stewards of the (Match) WCC title operating independently from FIDE,
Kasparov and Kramnik have defended the title against the very top number one
(*3) challengers at the rate of once every 2.8 years (counting
Kasparov-Short 1993 and Kramnik-Topalov 2006). Since this is even
faster than the traditional once per 3.0 years, I wonder precisely what huge
problem Topalov thinks he is helping to fix? Maybe Topalov prefers the
faster rate of a title defense once every 2.0 years.
Come
with me on a three minute journey into fantasy land. Imagine that the
USCF E.B. (United States Chess Federation Executive Board) were to pass a
purposely vague resolution announcing that it may consider the winner of the
2007 FIDE Championship tournament to be the new "Tournament World Chess
Champion", as distinct from the "Match World Chess Champion". I admit
this notion is problematic, but I am trying to think creatively, because I
see no other solution ideas being put forward..jpg)
THE
ONLY "ARGUMENT" THAT