Am I the only one who missed this interview by Kramnik done after Corus? I was out of the loop for most of January. Much of it covers the same ground as his recent New In Chess interview, but there is more detail here. Both Kramnik and the interviewer (Mr. Russian chess journalism Roshal) are Kasparov obsessed. Unless he'd been making comments in the Russian press I'm unaware of, Kasparov has been rather quiet on the Kramnik front for quite a while. (They do tend to save their most personal sparring for local papers.) I don't recall hearing either FIDE or Kasparov blame Kramnik for "destroying everything." What is there to destroy?
Sometimes you think that Ilyumzhinov, Kasparov, and Kramnik live in personal reality bubbles. Every tenuous fact is so stretched and warped to serve a purpose that it sounds like they are talking about totally different things. Most of these things have been beaten to death, but they still get dragged out each time. The bit at the end about the contract in London is typical. It was held by a bankrupt company, for goodness sake. The interview reads like one long excuse. (GM Yermolinsky points out below that he used to average 150 games a year. Kramnik declining Linares to rest after playing 27 games in six months does not engender sympathy.)
Anyway, it seems clear that as predicted Kramnik has no interest in playing a unification tournament. He's quite right that FIDE already recognized him as the classical champion, although that doesn't automatically preclude his playing in a unification event on equal footing with others. Unfortunately he wasn't asked what he is doing to develop a cycle or what such a cycle might look like. I don't hold much hope for any level shortcut events. Pressure should be about a cycle.
whinge whinge whinge. Kramink is starting to sound like the World Champion English rugby team explaining its recent losses to almost every decent international team. Bottom line is, proof of the pudding is in the eating; Can u perform over the board or not? If so prove it, otherwise move on old son, and leave us be in peace.
whinge whinge whinge. Kramink is starting to sound like the World Champion English rugby team explaining its recent losses to almost every decent international team. Bottom line is, proof of the pudding is in the eating; Can u perform over the board or not? If so prove it, otherwise move on old son, and leave us be in peace.
A very disappointing interview by Kramnik.
His Corus performance--
"In fact, if counting the defeats to Topalov in 15 moves and so-called "no play" with [white against] Morozevich due to my fever, I had 4 with white and 7 with black.... So, I was actually starting with '-1'."
I HATE elaborate excuse-making.
The press reaction to his withdrawl from the Russian Championship--
"And here, the reaction of some journalists and some of my colleagues, softly speaking, made me upset. This is the top of non ethics - to make shady money on other's indisposition."
Yes, the howling about his withdrawl was terribly overdone...but "top of non ethics" and "shady money" overstates things. Stop whining.
His non-participation in Linares--
"Why don't I play in Linares this year? The organizers contacted me after the match in Brissago when I had already signed the contracts to participate in Wijk-aan-Zee and Monaco."
If he really wants to play in Linares why not, before signing a Monaco deal, ask Linares if they're going to invite him? And why can't he play Linares anyway? Who cares if he's tired and gets clobbered in Monaco's silly blind and rapid games?
"Last year I participated almost in all tournaments when Kasparov refused playing, no one was saying that he was avoiding playing either against me or Anand." True enough. But stop whining.
A match with Kasparov--
"...he wants to start from...the same stage with me...I played the match with Leko, he should also play his match....I agree for equal conditions...but then...be so kind as to play a match with Anand for instance, or Leko. At least against Kasimdzhanov."
So much for Mr. Democrat. And last fall Kramnik said he saw no reason why he should play the Kasparov-Kasim winner?! What am I missing?
Yes, Kasparov, Ilyumzhinov and Kramnik are all acting badly. And yes, let's get the new cycle on the road.
i refuse to believe the above post was by the individual formerly known as greg koster..
i dont think there is anything seriously wrong with what Kramnik has said. I think all the top players should stop being prima donnas and be practical while obvioulsy taking care of their own interests. Forgetting about all the bad blood, to move forward, here is what the ACP should do:
Let Kasparov play Anand this fall and the winner play Kramnik in a unification final early next year. Voila! the title is unified.
next cycle:
have a candidates tournament this fall (around the time Kasparov and Anand are playing) with Topalov, Leko, Svidler, Moro, Polgar, Shirov, Ivanchuk, Pono etc. for the next cycle. The top 5 guys advance and are joined by the loser of Kasparov Anand and play three candidates matches early next year (around the time of the unification final).
The three winners are joined by the loser of the unification final and the four play a semifinal and final to determine the challenger to the unified champ.
a similar process can be established for future cycles.
Rationale:
Kasparov wants to start at the same level as Kramnik. Well Kramnik has played a match with Leko ... so Kasparov shouldnt have a "lower starting level" problem in playing Anand. Anand has pretty much been out of the WC cycle and should be willing to come in if he gets a fair shot at the title. Kramnik in his interview seems willing to play the winner of Kasparov and Anand and there is a clear plan for a next cycle.
Of course the real issue is one of money. Here is my take: if a decent organizer cant put together a million dollar fund for Kasparov - Anand (who are #1 and #2), then we know for sure the whole idea of a chess WC is doomed and we might as well just move over to a tennis like system.
In the system I have proposed, there are still likely to be some things that need to get ironed out. For example Kramnik will want draw odds. I am not sure Kaspy and Anand want to grant him that. Maybe an intermediate approach could be that if the match were tied, Kramnik can have the option of immediately going to rapids or have four more classical matches before going to rapids. I remember Badminton had some system like that a while ago. The option is potentially valuable. For example if a Brissago like situation happens where Kramnik is sick, he can opt for immediate rapids. Or if he feels his opponent is tiring (like Karpov in the first Kasparov match), he can opt for four more classical games.
I say an honest practical effort from all the players should fetch money. If it doesnt, we are no worse off and at least we know the WC is not economically viable.
"if a decent organizer can't put together a million dollar fund for Kasparov - Anand (who are #1 and #2) ...".
The sad reality is that it happened before: Kasparov got Anand to commit to a match in 1999, only to see the match fall through due to lack fo funding. If Kasparov at the top of the rating list, at his career peak and without having lost a match to anyone (this was a time when he was truly a legitimate world champion) could not secure funding for a match against #2 in the world, I am not optimistic about the funding potential of gansy's proposed unification plan.
We might well have to go with a tennis system - Anand, Topalov and Shirov would not mind that. Kramnik would rather watch a game of tennis than a game of chess.
"If Kasparov at the top of the rating list, at his career peak and without having lost a match to anyone (this was a time when he was truly a legitimate world champion) could not secure funding for a match against #2 in the world"
two points:
1. If a player is a cut above his opponent, then interest in the match automatically goes down.
2. I think the players will be willing to play for a lot less now than in 1999.
folks, u should realise that anybody can put together a realistic framework for reunification in 5 mts. getting the players to adhere to it is however like a blind man in a dark room trying to shove a pound of melted butter into a black wildcats's ear with a redhot needle. So proposing unification cycles is pointless, dont even bother...
Everyone has their own best interest at heart when it comes to reunification. Players should realize that it's simply not possible to be fair to everyone. No one wants to give a single inch of ground but doing just that is the only way unification will ever be achieved. No one wants to be a victim, but the unification will require sacrifice from a lot of people. Unfortunately, no one is willing to concede anything, and thus we have the current state of chess, an eternal spin cycle with little meaning.
Why don't I play in Linares this year? The organizers contacted me after the match in Brissago when I had already signed the contracts to participate in Wijk-aan-Zee and Monaco.
--
What? Most top players will play in all three.
"folks, u should realise that anybody can put together a realistic framework for reunification in 5 mts. getting the players to adhere to it is however like a blind man in a dark room trying to shove a pound of melted butter into a black wildcats's ear with a redhot needle."
If by "framework for unification," you mean an idea, then it's true that anyone can put it together in 5 months. We see such ideas on this forum practically every day. The problem is funding. These are professional players who depend on payment for their livelihood. They favor unification in the same abstract sense that we all do, but at the end of the day you have to pay them to play.
Indeed, the top players incur significant expenses to play at this level. For instance, to prepare for his match with Leko, Kramnik rented a house in Monaco for himself and his seconds, all of whom had to be paid as well. I believe they wer in that house a month in advance.
In chess, as in most fields of endeavour, professionals have to be paid appropriately.
"In chess, as in most fields of endeavour, professionals have to be paid appropriately."
Wrong and right. In chess, as in any other field, the players will be paid what the market can support. A big part of the problems in the chess world stems from the fact that prize money has been artificially inflated by singular rich donors, FIDE itself, and by the fact that the other top players are expecting the same level of payment as Kasparov (who is more of a star attraction and thus can demand more money).
Now that FIDE's money and goodwill seem to be spent, and their are few magnates left who care about chess, the prize money will need to fall to a more reasonable level which reflects the actual public interest in the events. The top players will need to get used to that before any real progress can be made.
Sadly, the chess elite - most of them raised in a society of plan economy - do not (or will not)understand this, so the prospects are bleak.
Having said that, I do think there would be a great deal of potential sponsorship in a big re-unification tournament of sorts. If somebody could bring Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand and Leko to the table for, say, a round robin tournament of 6 games against each other, which each of them agreed would count as the world championship (a bit like the reunification in 1948), that could surely be a mega event which could draw big time sponsorship. If it were combined with a solid and fair system for producing a challenger every 2 years, it could even work in the longer run as well (at this time, potential sponsors must be very reluctant to pay for a match the significance of which - to say the least - is not very clear).
Nice dialogue between Kasparov and Kramnik:
"Kasparov says he’ll play in quarterfinals, semifinals, or any other fair system that doesn’t put another player at an advantage. By that he means Kramnik and this is consistent with the position he held in Prague two years ago."
Garry Kasparov on the record, 11.05.2004
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1642
"Kasparov rejected all the ideas about tournament match or matches against Anand, Topalov or whoever before the Unification, giving excuses that he wants to start from one and the same stage with me. Let us leave the discussion behind why it should be this way, though it was exactly Kasparov whom I defeated in the Match for the World Champion title. But in this situation, since I played the match against Leko, he should also play his match. Only in this case we will be under the same conditions. So far, this is either desire to have something more than the Champion's privileges or simply no wish to play against one of the really dangerous opponents. I agree for equal conditions, but then, please, I am repeating once again, be so kind as to play a match with Anand for instance, or Leko."
Kramnik interview
http://www.64.ru/2005/eng/2/english1.html
So, does that mean that Kramnik would accept Gansy's idea? And would Kasparov accept it?
Mig, I like your trivia question. That's pretty interesting about Kasparov not losing to anyone in the top ten since Kramnik in 2000, yet losing to a few well below.
Well, there is a well known phenomena in sport that you sometimes play "down" to your opponents level. I presume chess being a competition also has some of that.
I find Kramnik's excuses pathetic.
When I had to play turnament chess for a living I averaged 150 games a year (once, in 1995 I hit 200) and I was older then than Kramnik is now.
The grind is part of the game. Deal with it.
I agree with Yermo: Kramnik "resting" after 14 games and missing the Russian Superfinal, and then resting again after Corus and missing Linares is simply insulting to people who *really* have to work for a living.
I don't know if Yermo's 150+ games a year were of the same intensity as Kramnik's 14 (I've never played competitive chess for a living) but it just sounds wrong that a player need to rest when he averages what, 30-45 games per year?
What Kramnik needs is to play more, and better, to show people he *is* the World Champion...
Even if you work for a living you probably take sick leaves if needed. I hope.
As soon as some of the critics here get to play in the world championship match, and then have stamina for 5 supertourneys following it, I will accept their criticism that Kramnik should not complain about being tired. Perhaps yermo could play 150 games per year, but Kramnik is only 150 higher rated so maybe Kramnik needs many times the energy to play a single game compared to a GM like yermo.
Among the top 10 players, only Leko(55 games), Adams(64), Svidler(61) and Shirov(79) played more classical games in 2004 than Kramnik(52). Kaspasrov(34), Anand(49), Topalov(37), Morozevich(40), Bacrot(50) all played less, but does anyone ever complain about them not playing enough?
Kramnik seems to get more hate for taking a month off than Fischer got for taking 20 years off.
When Kramnik declines to play in Russian superfinal and Linares where he would face Kasparov, it means he is afraid of playing Kasparov. When Kasparov declines to play in Dortmund and Wijk where he would have to face Kramnik, it doesn't mean anything.
It is pathetic how some people use Kramnik as a scapegoat for everything. I think those people should just get a life.
I am well aware of Kasimdzhanov's strange and weak play so far in Linares. I had to play over his loss to Anand 5 or 6 times because I was in total disbelief. Is this really the same guy who beat Ivanchuk, Adams, Topalov, and Grischuk in Libya? Still, any talk of Unification has to include Kasimdzhanov for he is the reigning FIDE World Champion. Legitimacy is partially rooted in legality and Kasimdzhanov is legally defined as the FIDE WC.
As for Kramnik's comments, Greg Koster's post, a known Kramnik apologist, is as strange as Kramnik's interview. Are they showing Twilight Zone reruns by any chance?
Russianbear's note merits Post-of-the-Week honors. Nothing like relevant stats to enlighten the discussion.
Who is using Kramnik as a scapegoat for anything, or hating him? People are criticizing him for skipping two important tournaments (both of which he agree to play in, one of which he dropped out of at the last minute) and giving a lot of long-winded excuses in an interview. There is a such thing as measured criticism. Saying something negative doesn't mean hatred.
Being better and/or more successful at chess doesn't mean you expend more energy at the board. We know some players use more physical energy than others. There is no reason to believe, and many reasons not to believe, that Kramnik would be more tired playing 50 games than Yermolinsky would be from playing 50 games.
A world championship match has unique stresses that should not be underestimated, of course. And the elite certainly spend more of their time off the board working. Kramnik calling in sick isn't a crime. What annoyed me was 1) agreeing to play and then backing out and 2) the ultra-defensive tone of the interview. It's the same attitude as the "a painter paints, take what I give you and you're lucky to get it" instead of being grateful for what chess and fans have given him and feeling an obligation to them.
As for the statistics, they show that the top players don't play classical chess very often. So? Do you hear the others complaining about exhaustion in interviews? When they do, we'll complain about them too. Anand, Leko, and Topalov will all play in Wijk, Linares, and Monaco, and then two of them will play in Sofia in May. Anand even worked in six Bundesliga games! Where's the long Anand dissemblance about not winning Corus? Where is Topalov complaining about tiredness contributing to his endgame blunders against Anand in Linares? He's certainly had the opportunity.
Instead of stepping up to the title and doing more than the "average super GM" Kramnik seems to take liberties with the title, using it as an excuse to do less. Other top players who no-show to events don't get invited back. Kramnik will, and he knows it. And his doing it makes it okay.
Yes, I'm back to "the world champion should set an example." The top stars have more of an obligation to show up, to do more than just show up, if they want to be treated like stars. If you (or Kramnik) wonder why he doesn't get respect, that interview sums it up nicely.
Just in case readers take posters' views for my own, I've never said Kramnik is dodging Kasparov.
Kramnik = Koward
"Kasparov says he’ll play in quarterfinals, semifinals, or any other fair system that doesn’t put another player at an advantage"
What kind os BS is this? He Accept to play The Libya Winner, so he can accept privileges and no other player? Please be serious! He should remember that the World Champion is Kramnik, and is ridiculous put the WCh at same level of a contender.
"So? Do you hear the others complaining about exhaustion in interviews? When they do, we'll complain about them too."
There is no possible way you can look at health problems being a crime if you're not just terribly biased against him. You keep demonstrating time after time that you're just full of unreasonable hatred against Kramnik. Bashing him the way you constantly do for not wanting to risk his health is not "measured criticism" for God's sake. Excuse me while I throw up.
All you have shown is that you can't read, acirce. Read my original post. Really, read it right now. Where is this hatred, the bashing, the bias? I even say explicitly in a comment that calling in sick is no crime and what bothers me are the excuses and desultory attitude shown in the interview.
If you throw up, please do so on your keyboard so you stop posting these ridiculous strawmen.
About the stats about who plays how often.
It's not just classical chess which demands energy. Anand has played in much more chess tourneys than Kramnik, including the rapid tourneys. Travelling to different countries and playing several games per day demands a lot of energy. That’s according to several GMs.
Kramnik's excuses get more obvious when you look at how many games Kramnik has played after becoming World Champ in 2000 and compare that with other top players (only Kasparov might have less games).
Why can't we just accept that Kramnik is in delicate health at the moment? There is only one Kramnik, one Kasparov, one Anand with the ability to play chess at such a high level. These are exceptional individuals, and in some cases their exceptional abilities come accompanied by an increased susceptibility to illness.
How many of us are even able to understand or imagine the kind of problem resulting from not being able to forget a certain game/position?
No doubt, Kramnik is in crisis, not playing at the same level as before. Let's all hope that he fully recovers and returns to form.
Mig, you are pretty good at finding excuses yourself, so why complain if Kramnik tries to justify himself? Everybody does.
Moreover, in this interview Kramnik seems to accept the idea of a match between Kasparov and Anand in order to determine his next challenger.
Great idea, relatively easy to organize (at least in comparison to other events). I hope that he really means it, and if so: go for it !
FIDE should just accept the winner of the match (Kasparov/Anand) - Kramnik as world champion and organize a new candidate cycle like in the good old days...
And the annual FIDE WC becomes the annual FIDE World Cup.
When a World Champion asks a major tournament to accommodate to his schedule, agrees to play their tournament, then subsequently falls ill, he owes it to the chess world to play on nonetheless, rewarding the chess world with lousy games and dumping scads of rating points.
When a World Champion who could have given no reason for skipping Linares, instead offers a silly one, he has again defaulted on his World Championship responsibilities.
When a World's #1, by interposing demands for preferential treatment, announces he will not compete in any traditional Candidates event to determine the challenger, has he defaulted on any responsibilities to the chess world?
If yes, which is the more serious default?
> If yes, which is the more serious default?
The first one. Even though these are not the scenarios you specified, I essentially equal them to:
1. A World Champion who refuses to take on any challengers and hence keeps his title.
2. A #1 who keeps his ranking by doing well in tournaments and who feels he does not have to go through a qualifying cycle.
Bottom line, it is the #1 who is skipping on a very good chance to clench the title, so he is the biggest loser - the Champion, on the other hand, simply keeps his title through inertia. Plus, the #1 is at least proving himself somewhat, whereas the Champion is proving nothing to no one.
I agree we should wait a little bit to see if Kramnik recovers his form. But if he stays sick for 2 years (he's been sick for almost six months now) we can't let him remain as WC purely out of sympathy for his current condition and out of respect for his 2000 match win over Kasparov.
Mig infuriated by acirce :
"If you throw up, please do so on your keyboard so you stop posting these ridiculous strawmen."
Is that a fact ? Who are acirce's strawmen ?? Does agreeing with him and Kramnik about principles (even when Kasparov is showing that he is probably the best player in the world again) make one a non-entity ?...
Eh? I really don't know what you are talking about, Ray. What principles? Where do I mention them? Please look up the term "straw man". acirce is defending Kramnik from accusations no one made because they are easy to refute. It's easier to cut & paste "everybody hates Kramnik! Mig is biased! Waaaahhh!" than to discuss intelligently.
There is a difference between a one-off incident and a consistent pattern of behavior. There is also the attitude displayed when one is questioned about one's behavior. Yes, it is possible Kramnik has been near death for six months. I still find his attitude about what being world champion means (nothing) reprehensible. And his epic excusemaking would be sad even if every single thing he said were gospel truth.
Kramnik isn't performing well enough in tournaments (or what is the reason again? I can't believe you meant he refuses to take on challengers because that is so obviously false, but then again nothing surprises me any more) so "we" can't "let him remain as WC"? Just when I though this couldn't be better, Murali strikes. It would be a totally unprecedented step in chess history but OK, let's strip him. Only problem is, who would do that?
Daily "dirt":
1. Earth or soil.
2.
a)A filthy or soiling substance, such as mud or dust.
b)Excrement.
3.A squalid or filthy condition.
4.One that is mean, contemptible, or vile.
5.
a)Obscene language or subject matter.
b)Malicious or scandalous gossip.
c)Information that embarrasses or accuses.
6.Unethical behavior or practice; corruption.
7.Material, such as gravel or slag, from which metal is extracted in mining
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dirt
Murali,
If you don't mind too much, let's stop commenting on each other's posts so we don't tie up Mig's blog with our uninteresting disputes.
Sorry about not discussing intelligently enough for you... I was merely trying to understand your "strawMEN" accusation. My online English dictionnary gives three definitions to "strawman", the first two being:
"1. a person used as a cover for some questionable activity"
"2. a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted". I thought you meant the first acception and not the second, hence my questions. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
As for cutting and pasting, everybody has his own style of writing. On a blog, I like short, factual arguments and not long-winded, pro-domo effusions.
Finally, I never said YOU mentioned "principles". I'm the one defending principles when I argue that : 1. Kramnik is the only (classical) World Chess Champion we got; & 2. Kasparov should accept to participate in a Candidates'cycle (even though he's probably the best player right now and despite his unique historical status) and say so.
In 1975, Bobby Fischer, the world's best player, imposed special conditions on his title defense. Those condition were refused and Fischer disappeared. But imagine the chaos if Fischer had spent the next five years trumpeting his #1 ranking and winning every tournament in sight.
Since 2000, Garry Kasparov, quite possibly the world's best player, has been imposing special conditions on HIS participation in a World Championship cycle. His rematch and air-drop demands were arguably undemocratic in denying great players such as Anand their shot. The current suggestion that the World Champion join a Candidates event would, for the first time in the 120 years of chess championship history, deny the sitting champion a head-to-head title defense.
Whether you blame Kasparov for making the demands or Kramnik/the ACP for not acceding to them, the problem in the chess world centers around these demands.
As Russianbear pointed out, Kramnik's been playing as many tournament games as just about anyone else lately. If he gave more than two weeks notice before withdrawing from a tournament due to illness (Russian championship), played in this year's Linares, allowed fewer short draws, and hadn't been so whiny in this last interview the chess world would be somewhat better off. But the World Champion's many annoying imperfections are not the cause of the chess world's major problems.
Kramnik's interview did reveal that Joel Lautier and the ACP have been trying to negotiate with Kasparov over his special conditions for contending for the title. Evidently these negotiations have failed.
Kasparov's conditions for competing for the title are impossible to achieve unless either a) Anand, Leko, and other top players are cut out or b) the World Champion is denied his traditional right to play a head-to-head title defense match.
The frustration of everyone in this blog will not dissipate when and if Kramnik tidies up his act. It will endure at least until we find out whether the ox that's to be gored is Kasparov's, Kramnik's, or Anand-Leko-Topalov's...or until Kasparov modifies his special conditions.
I have always been pretty vocal in criticizing Kasparov's demands for preferential treatment. In particular, I've always criticized Mig when he advocated granting Kasparov this preferential treatment for the sake of a quick and dirty unification. However, as of lately Kasparov appears to have stopped his demands for preferential treatment and has considered joining other top candidates such as Anand and Topalov in a qualification tournament of some sort.
Meanwhile, Kramnik is steadfast in his demands that the top players in the world compete to produce a challenger for him. You might argue it is his right to demand that, since he is the reigning champion and has successfully defended his title in a match against Leko. Yet, what really bothers me is that he DREW that match. As I said before, if he had won that match I would find his demands more justified.
You can argue that the World Champion has historically had draw odds, and several used it in their favor (namely: Lasker in 1910 against Schlechter, Botvinnik in 1951 against Bronstein and 1954 against Smyslov, Kasparov in 1987 against Karpov). If they used it, why can't Kramnik?
Here is where I will disagree with history: in my opinion, the champion should never have draw odds. In case the match is drawn by the last game, let the players enter sudden death mode until a winner is found. Just because chess history made mistakes does not mean they should be repeated (Examples of chess history mistakes that should never be allowed to happen again: Alekhine in the early 30's refusing to grant Capablanca a match for the title, or Botvinnik in the 50's getting automatic rematches against his challengers).
Conclusion: Kramnik should not get any privileges for having drawn that match with Leko. Even if he deserves to start higher than Kasparov because he's "played his match while Kasparov hasn't", Leko should start at the same level as Kramnik. He is even above Kramnik on the rating list!
If the blogmaster's opinions disturb you so much that you have to flame him, then find another chess forum. Can't find another one? Then appreciate this one.
Without dirt you can't grow things.
Mig, I just wanted to comment on your note that started this thread. Have you possibly missed the long Kasparov interview (same "64", same Roshal) done after the Russian championship? The Russian version is in issues 12/2004 and 1/2005, the second part is available in English in a rather clumsy translation: http://www.64.ru/2005/1/gk2.html
Kasparov can of course be called many things, but quiet (or, say, shy) is probably not one of them. He certainly shares with Roshal his opinion of Kramnik (not entirely favorable, I am afraid.) And he does indeed blame Kramnik for destroying the Prague agreements - or at least working to destroy them. Kasparov says that Kramnik did not want to sign the document and when he did sign it was only so he could stall things from inside. Among many other things, of course.
"Instead of stepping up to the title and doing more than the "average super GM" Kramnik seems to take liberties with the title, using it as an excuse to do less."
I definitely agree. He kind of reminds me of players who suddenly choose to protect their online ratings by either not playing at all or playing only unrated games. It's an "online" rating! Other than being a possible indication of progress, does it really matter?
The organizing body should put their foot down. If the champion does not defend the title within a certain time period, he should be forfeited. and the rest of the chess world should accept it as such. This is the only way to give the title credibility again.
dz, thanks! Wow, that was fascinating, not least for GK's opinion of who's the "best of the rest". Interesting that he always talks of Morozevich, tho he has trash talked him in the past. I personally think of the new generation (after Anand's generation), Moro is the most talented in a pure chess sense. Anyway fascinating reading. Dunno why nobody bothers to post these up on more public forums.
Derek, did you even bother to read the interview? Kramnik says that he is willing to defend his title against either Anand or Kasparov after a match between the two players. In my opinion this would be the best solution.
Contrasted with the spectacular Kasparov interview referenced above by “dz,” Kramnik’s recent weasel whining is a “fart in a hailstorm.” On rematch, title legitimacy, and other issues there’s no point in once again quoting Kasparov against himself. But the Kasparov interview does contains some interesting nuggets.
“Today I cannot add such value to FIDE because I am not undisputable number one any more. Well, not all my results are great now. I believe I am still the best, but there is no such the gap that existed two years ago.”
“I admit that during several last years Anand has had brilliant results that arguably make him the best in the world currently.”
“No, I don't think that a round-robin tournament is a good idea because I can anticipate many possible conflict situations. For example, a lot depends on the pairing of the last round. I am certain that the world champion must be determined in matches.”
What an unusual man, whose unique set of principles allows him, in pursuit of a title shot, to climb into bed with Ilyumzhinov but not to play in a Candidates event.
After reading the Kasparov interview, I see that he has already declined to participate in a match against Anand to determine the next challenger to Kramnik:
"Moreover, I am ready to play in any event where I'll be in equal conditions with Kramnik. However, I'll not play in any competition where Kramnik will get superior conditions because he just have (sic) no valid right for this."
The whole interview is very funny, full of small logical inconsistencies and great statements such as:
"Kasymdzhanov has the real title. If you play within the recognized system, then your title is much more legitimate. Certainly, many strong players didn't participate in the last world championship in Libya. However, the caliber of Kasymdzhanov's opponents strongly backs up his position."
If Kramnik is "Kasparov obsessed", as Mig writes, Kasparov is certainly "Kramnik obsessed".
"Kramnik says that he is willing to defend his title against either Anand or Kasparov after a match between the two players. In my opinion this would be the best solution."
Fine, but to which problem? I see two separate ones.
First, the chess public yearns for a long match, at a classical time control, between the world's two top ranked players. That problem would evidently be solved, and it can be done, it's just a question of money. They can call it the World Championship, or the Pan-Galactic Championship if they prefer. If the public then wants to see a challenge match in which the winner takes on Kramnik or someone else, that will just need more money.
What does this do to solve the second problem, which is the collapse of any structured and universally accepted World Championship? Evidently nothing. That is in such terminal disarray that it can be revived only by starting from scratch, which will require not only money, but also political agreement from many sides. Much harder to achieve, and if the present "governing body" is going to be in charge let's not even waste our time.
After reading Kasparov's '64' interview, Kramnik's whining is no less excusable, but perhaps a bit more understandable.
Reading the two articles together leads to this inference:
Intending to capitulate to Kasparov's "equal standing" demands, Lautier met with Garry and proposed: "After London 2000 you wanted to start equal with Kramnik. Kramnik played a match with Leko. So you can play a match with Anand. And the winners play for the title."
And Kasparov refused!!
That is an awesome inference Greg. I reread the two articles and I will admit I definitely missed it. In fact, I think most people missed it; actually I don't think anyone saw it, because I don't think it is there at all.
In Kramnik's interview, the only mention of Mr. Lautier is in the statement:
"Here is another example where deeds do not coincide with words. Kasparov personally met with the ACP President Joel Lautier only half a year ago. They have discussed Kasparov's active membership in ACP and all this miraculously coincides with his public announcements against the organization! At the same time, I am aware that there was rather long correspondence taking place with participation of Kasparov's manager Owen Williams."
And Kasparov's interview mentions the ACP and Lautier only as far as his participation in organizing the Kramnik-Leko match.
I understand that the dissection in the whole thread is trying to understand the principal characters actions, and read between the lines to obtain a deeper meaning, but that inference is just trying to stir the pot with a wet spaghetti noodle.
Here ya go, Chris--
From the Kramnik interview:
"Kasparov personally met with the ACP President Joel Lautier only half a year ago. They have discussed Kasparov's active membership in ACP.... At the same time, I am aware that there was rather long correspondence taking place with participation of Kasparov's manager Owen Williams....
- The possible match tournament was also discussed… [evidently by Lautier or the ACP, with Kasparov or his manager.]
- Kasparov rejected all the ideas about tournament match or matches against Anand, Topalov or whoever before the Unification, giving excuses that he wants to start from one and the same stage with me."
Greg --
I read that part, but your inference is very specific, while the interview description is very general.
I am not saying that I know what specifically was mentioned when they discussed, but I do not think we can safely infer that a specific match was discussed with individuals, timelines, etc.
This seems to be reinforced by Kasparovs comment in Linares:
“When everything is arranged and I have received an official invitation, then I'll make my decision. There's nothing for me to say now because there is no concrete proposal."
While I don't think that Kasparov has a lot of respect for the ACP (he basically calls it Kramnik's creation in the interview), this stance does seem rational and consistent with any other conversations.
Anyway, my point was that inferences based on interviews with limited context are certainly possible, but always need to be taken with a large grain of salt.
Keep up the good work Greg, I think that keeping everyone honest is the only way to move forward at this point.
Chris,
About the FIDE proposal, a roundrobin in Kalmykia, Kasparov said: there's nothing for me to say now.
About the ACP proposal(?)--equal start, Kramnik plays Leko, Kasparov plays Anand, winners play each other--Kasparov evidently said: "no."
Ah, from the tone of the initial post you made on this line of reasoning, I had thought you had derived your inference from just the two interviews. I am assuming that there is another source for the ACP information that led you there.
In terms of money for future players, what is missing is the "faceless championship rules." That is, sponsors want to konw that there is a procedure IN ADVANCE to determine who the next challenger will be. So they don't have to depend on the whims/needs of any particular individual who holds the title to know when the NEXT cycle will happen.
Yes, chess fans would like some resolution among the Anand/Kasparov/Kramnik debates.
But far, far, far more important for the future of the sport is a defined cycle so that on the START day of the "title match," one already knows what the procedure will be for finding the challenger to whoever the winner happens to be.
This is what has been missing from all of the unification proposals that I've seen.
And it is this which has made it so difficult to attract sponsors to chess.
I know I have said it before, but as it is germane, I will say it here again: chess is ALREADY used as a commercial icon in the US and Europe. Dozens of high money ad campaigns use it every year.
What is missing is a procedure for tying individual grandmasters/events into the advertising.
And that requires an independent organization that can guarantee that there will be a qualifying cycle, whatever its format.
Up until now, the assumption has been that that is the role that FIDE plays. Hence the importance of including it in the unification process.
If ACP is taking that over, OK, but the commercial sponsorship will not come until you can tell them on the day that a "championship" starts exactly what the procedure will be for finding the NEXT challenger.
Until then all we are doing is planning a really cool event, but we have not reached the level of a true professional sport.
--duif
Has FIDE already decided to play the "Makropoulos variation": so-called "unification" without Kramnik? Some of Kasparov's comments seem prophetic in that regard.
Ilyumzhinov plans to invite Kasparov, Kasimdzhanov, Adams, Topalov, Morozevich, Anand, Leko and Kramnik to his two round-robin tournament. There is already the provision: "In case any of the eight grandmasters refuse, they will be substituted by their follow-ups in the FIDE rankings"
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2226
There are some similarities between the FIDE proposal and the ideas Kasparov expressed in his interview with Roshal:
"Roshal: That is why the public opinion currently suggests to organize some tournament to determine the absolute world champion. What do you think about this idea?
Kasparov: Yeah, there is a certain number of players that should have the right to play in this tournament. (...)"
- However, Kasparov would prefer a match tournament of 8 players. -
"Moreover, I am ready to play in any event where I'll be in equal conditions with Kramnik. (...)"
"Let's assume that both money and organization exist. This is the only way to challenge Kramnik. In this case he would face a difficult choice. If he refuse (sic) to participate in the event, he'll be all alone."
- And this, in my opinion, is exacly FIDE's plan. -
"Roshal: By the way, many FIDE extremists, say, Makropoulos, insisted that FIDE needn't Kramnik for the unification process at all. (...)"
"Kasparov: OK, let's consider the situation from Makropoulos' point of view. Who is Kramnik at all? Why do FIDE need him? If the world's strongest player had become the World Champion, FIDE would have gotten just everything it wanted. Kasparov-Ponomarev match was entirely sufficient for FIDE. I could bring historic legitimacy."
http://www.64.ru/2005/1/gk2.html
Given the similarity of the ideas and proposals, it shouldn't come as a surprise that "Kasparov has said he would consider playing" in the so-called "unification tournament": "When everything is arranged and I have received an official invitation, then I'll make my decision."
All FIDE needs in order to proceed with this plan is money. FIDE failed to raise the necessary funds for the Kasparov-Kasimdzhanov match, but with the possible involvement of most of the chess elite playing for the title of World Champion, it should be a lot easier to achieve in this case.
And I'm afraid that once the money is there most of the invited players are likely to participate in the tournament. After all, it's another shot at the most prestigious title in the chess world, who wouldn't give it a try? The prospect of avoiding a lengthy match against an opponent as tough as Kramnik makes it even more attractive.
So maybe this latest FIDE move deserves a brilliancy prize rather than a Monty Python Award.
But it still remains a scam.
Well, that is basically how they arm-twisted Kramnik to the table in Prague. Either join the unification plan or be isolated and have your legitimacy pitted against ours. In 2002 Kramnik had a bankrupt organization behind him and knew a Kasparov event under FIDE would probably outgun him. He was also pushed by his own "supporters" in Einstein, who were broke and wanted a piece of the pie they thought Ilyumzhinov + Kasparov could deliver.
Going it alone isn't easy, no matter how much you believe in your legitimacy. Kramnik now, like Kasparov from 93-2000, is in charge of organizing his own title events and/or finding/forming an organization to do so. He may find it easier and more practical to come in from the cold unless he can mount considerable financial support for a cycle that leads to his title.
Mig, I thought that Kasparov lost to Judit Polgar and Ivanchuk in Russia v Rest of the World in 2002. I may be wrong about this or they may have both been out of the top ten but I would think not.
Just counting classical chess, not rapid or blitz.
I think Greg Koster made some good points about Kramnik in his first post here. Although I agree with them I do think they are minor points of the interview.
The way I see it, there are two major bits of information we can take from this interview it on good one bad.
First the good: Kramnik criticized Kasparov for requiring a set amount of money before he would play a match. I agree with this criticism. If you say I will play but I need X millions of dollars before I will play you might as well say "I won't play." Kramnik and Leko both deserve credit for beign practical and playing for whatever prize fund the market would bear. This type of thinking is the only way to have a secure cycle.
the bad: Kramnik still hasn't explained what he wants for a cycle. He wasn't even asked! In the past he has said somethign like the old candidates, but he needs to start circulating concrete proposals. I am not sure if he has. Perhaps he did and communicated them to Kasparov. But in any event if he is going to have a real cyle (especially one that others have input on) he needs to start concrete proposals. It is taking way too long and Kramnik needs to spell what his proposal is.