|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
This came as a surprise, since previous meetings between ACP and FIDE in May and July had gone well and done much to bridge the differences between the two organizations over key issues. Time may have been short to implement changes before the start of the World Cup in Khanty-Mansiisk in late November if those were deemed absolutely necessary, but there was definitely enough of it to organize a meeting between FIDE and ACP. Given the importance of the matter, it is a great pity FIDE only took into consideration the opinion of the eight participants in San Luis. Our position on the new rules is the following:
2) There used to be a long-standing tradition that the World Champion had some privileges, and was most often seeded directly to the final match, as happened between 1948 and 1993. Should a final tournament, instead of a match, decide the world title, it would appear normal that the World Champion be seeded to the event directly. Granting the same privilege to players who finished second to fourth in San Luis is much more debatable. Considering that no qualifier was organized and only the Elo rating average was used in determining the participants of San Luis (with the exception of former World Champion Rustam Kasimdzhanov), other top players with similarly high ratings may not see this rule as very fair, since half of the spots for the final event are already taken, and this event will only take place in two years’ time. On a personal note, I should add that an argument for a final tournament, rather than a match, was to introduce more dynamism in the world cycle, but having half the players already seeded so long in advance defeats that purpose. 3) Dropping the entire tradition of final matches for the title of World Champion is a decision with far-reaching consequences. What has made chess popular in the mainstream media are the great duels of the past, the Fischer-Spassky, Karpov-Kortchnoi and Kasparov-Karpov showdowns have brought chess in the limelight. The San Luis tournament was successful from the purely technical point of view, with an abundance of fascinating chess games, however its media impact worldwide was clearly lower than previous head-to-head matches. Certainly, opinions may differ on this complex topic, but once again, such a decision should be weighed carefully beforehand and not taken with such haste. Ending an almost 120 year-long tradition (even previous FIDE knock-out world championships featured a final match) will have strong effects on the media popularity of chess, and it is highly unclear whether these will be beneficial to chess in the long run. In conclusion, ACP still acknowledges the efforts of FIDE to take into account some of our recommendations (such as adding rest days for tie-breaks in the World Cup or dropping the Last Chance tournament). Let us hope that the unilateral decision by FIDE to change rules for the World Championship, without consulting the ACP, will not prove a major setback in an otherwise constructive cooperation since May 2005.
|
The
|
|||
|
|||||
The
ACP Board would like to state its position regarding the recent change of
rules in the FIDE World Championship cycle. An initial press release
by FIDE has caused some confusion concerning the involvement of ACP in this
decision. In subsequent open letters posted on the website
www.chessbase.com, emanating both from ACP and FIDE representatives, the
issue was cleared: ACP was in no way consulted by FIDE before the latter
decided on the drastic changes for the upcoming World Championship cycle.
1)
