In a reply to my enquiry about the degree of concreteness to the Topalov-Kramnik match statements by FIDE prez Ilyumzhinov, the FIDE Secretariat responded with:
The statement of the FIDE President Mr Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, published yesterday in Sport Express naturally reflects the official position of FIDE.
Well, yes, okay. But what is that official position? As translated here (not by machine), it basically states that Elista is willing to host such a match if Kramnik's supporters can come up with enough money and abide by FIDE's various rules. The same would ostensibly be true about a match with any 2700+, according to the challenge match rules FIDE issued a few weeks ago. How much money? According to those regulations:
b. At the same time, the challenger’s side shall guarantee the organisational budget of the match, including a contribution fee to FIDE in the amount of 20% above and over of the total prize fund, net and not subject to any further deductions such as tax.
The incumbent champ gets one million, win or lose, regardless of the total prize fund. So it's not really correct to refer to the sum in point (a) as a prize fund. It's a fee. Anything above that is a prize fund. I suppose this doesn't mean the loser's share must be one million. Maybe you can hand the incumbent his million and then play for half that. Otherwise it's at least two million just for the prize fund, which is preposterous right now. Even if the challenger is willing to play for very little it's going to surpass $1.5 million in total costs and probably quite a bit more.
It's not unusual in such formats to have the champ get a big guaranteed payday. In boxing, for example. The challenger is banking on winning and making the big bucks later. But under the FIDE system that's not likely and certainly isn't guaranteed. If the challenger wins he's quickly dropped into a tournament or candidates match with only small chances of winning and no big payoff in sight other than what he can rustle up himself by exploiting the title. And in boxing the challenger doesn't come up with the cash himself.
The amount is just way too high. The defending champion should be delighted to play for much less. Why not? It's not as if there's a great chance of defending the title in the current format so you might as well cash in while you can. Topalov got around a quarter-million for winning San Luis. I assume the numbers are so ridiculously high to prevent anyone from challenging. FIDE doesn't like the match format because it gives too much power to the players – see Kasparov-Short, 1993. They want a weak, rotating title. I hope Kramnik can come up with the money just to spite them.
(Off-topic synapse firing: When Microsoft approached the Rolling Stones to use their song "Start Me Up" in their Windows 95 launch campaign, instead of refusing, the Stones, who almost never allowed their songs to be used in ads, put a huge price tag on it, reportedly $12 million. They bought it.)
Well, let's see, The 627 rating points that I would need in addition to the $1,000,000 USD shouldn't be that much of a problem to obtain. But the 20% tax free above and over the title prize fund fee, just goes against my principles.
Sorry FIDE, but your overall avarice will certainly prevent me from pursuing my indiviual quest for the World Championship.
GM Topolov, you may rest assured that this does not reflect negatively upon my respect and admiration for your outstanding abiliities over-the-board. Most cordially, chesstraveler
Seems like continuing the mode of operation for the FIDE -- money as a barrier to entry. $1M to run for president, $1M to pay as a challenger.
Is it a wonder why there was a Kasparov-Short break with an organization like this? You could bash Kramnik for not having a cycle and allowing the FIDE to fill the void, but rational people wouldn't expect this behavior after San Luis.
Seems like more full of fluff press releases with no real intent from the FIDE. Go Kok!
Seems like continuing the mode of operation for the FIDE -- money as a barrier to entry. $1M to run for president, $1M to pay as a challenger.
Is it a wonder why there was a Kasparov-Short break with an organization like this? You could bash Kramnik for not having a cycle and allowing the FIDE to fill the void, but rational people wouldn't expect this behavior after San Luis.
Seems like more full of fluff press releases with no real intent from the FIDE. Go Kok!
This 20 % FIDE fee is something quite ridiculous. Is that just the price to watch sleek little Kirsan make the first move and grin at cameras?
Maybe FIDE can combine the million dollar fees, so that a person can both run for president AND play the world champion at the same time!
LoL knight_tour! Good one.
So basically nothing new they have requested the same demands that made UEP give up the idea of the match because it was not realistic at the moment.
Mig, any news from Kramnik's side? His website is still not accessible. It went down approximately the same time this news broke out.
One million dollars is a ridiculously LOW sum as a prize fund for the World Championship. Topalov only got $250,000.00?! That's an insult. Fischer won that much 34 YEARS AGO! If Poker tournaments are offering prize funds in the millions to the losers, and the prize funds for other "minor" sports are in the millions, then Chess deserves no less. Fischer pointed the way long ago and most Americans are still idiots. THINK BIG! How about a prize fund of $10 Million dollars to the winner? Now that would finally get some interest going.
Maybe FIDE has hacked kramnik's website...
Noyb, 10 million is a good idea, as long as you can give the cash. But as long as nobody gives the cash, it won't be possible.
You know, the thing above your neck can sometimes be used to think a little : in poker, if 100 players agree to put 100000 $ on the table to play for the world title, then the winner will have 10 millions. But in chess, nobody expects to put money on the table, that's not the way things go...
N. Short says in http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2888 that a GM title may be worth only a few thousand US$.
I wonder if he has any info on the WCH title, too!?
FIDE are just exploiting Kramnik's temporary retirement. Obviously there have been no recent talks between both parties and FIDE just announce when Kramnik mentions his illness.
These guys would sell their granny for their own ends
They aren't exploiting anything because they aren't DOING anything. Nothing has changed at all. Ilyumzhinov just said that Kramnik, like anyone else who qualifies under the rules, can play Topalov for the title. The only thing resembling a commitment was saying that Elista could host it.
Maybe they could like make the FIDE World Cup like the world series of poker where anyone can like enter for a couple thousand to play in a qualifying tournament right before the world cup. And then if you win the worldcup you become the challenger for the world championship.
Actually, Short only claimed that the GM title could be **bought** for a few thousand $$. The players/organizers who sell the GM title (norms) are, in effect, selling something that isn't theirs to sell. Consider that thieves will often sell the items that they stole for just 5-10% of market value.
For a player to be willing to fork over even a few thousand $$ in what is inherently a risky scheme, then he must either perceive the GM as having a worth substancially in excess of the amount that he is paying, or he is a fool....
N. Short says in http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2888 that a GM title may be worth only a few thousand US$.
I wonder if he has any info on the WCH title, too!?
Posted by: IM/FST Jovan Petronic at January 27, 2006 09:09
====================================
"Titles can be bought!
He spoke further of corruption in world chess including in some instances the manipulation of ratings and titles, stating that a grandmaster title can be bought for a few thousand dollars!! Recently elected as Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Chess Association, he did not hide the fact that he believed in sweeping changes in the FIDE leadership arguing that this was the best thing for chess"
Tim Taylor, in his now-infamous Hungarian travelogue published in Chess Life last year, complained that Budapest's "First Saturday" tournaments proved not to be the "norm factory" they were cracked up to be. (Tim managed to snag 1st place in the top section of one of several events he played in, but still didn't get a GM norm).
Asa Hoffman's ever-colorful take on Taylor's complaint: "Of course it wasn't a norm factory for him -- he didn't bring any money! If he'd brought money, he could have bought all the norms he wanted."
Tim Taylor, in his now-infamous Hungarian travelogue published in Chess Life last year, complained that Budapest's "First Saturday" tournaments proved not to be the "norm factory" they were cracked up to be. (Tim managed to snag 1st place in the top section of one of several events he played in, but still didn't get a GM norm).
Asa Hoffman's ever-colorful take on Taylor's complaint: "Of course it wasn't a norm factory for him -- he didn't bring any money! If he'd brought money, he could have bought all the norms he wanted."
Along the same lines, I am aware of considerable anecdotal evidence that people do perceive economic value in possessing a formal label of chess-playing strength -- not only the GM and IM titles, but even lesser (and arguably meaningless) designations like the 2200-USCF rating boundary that some people refer to as "NM".
Three friends of mine from diverse chess backgrounds, each told me without prompting that they shy away from tournament play, out of fear that losing rating points might reduce their chess income. (And to think that you anti-sandbag cynics thought it's only costly to GAIN points, and a gold mine to lose points!)
One of the people I'm referring to is a full-time chess teacher and writer whose FIDE and USCF ratings are roughly 2300. He feels he is overrated and very likely to lose points if he played; and his business would suffer if his rating dropped under 2200.
The second person is fully employed outside of chess but does co-edit at least one newspaper chess column; he feels that income source would dry up if he could no longer call himself a "USCF Master." (He too feels he is overrated, so he doesn't play.)
The third is an IM who also has a non-chess profession, but gets substantial additional income from a variety of chess businesses, including, of course, private students. He does play tournaments on occasion. Still, he has voiced fears that a large rating decline might diminish his chess income.
overrated USCF masters are a dime a dozen especially the floor masters rated exactly 2200.
The thing about those floored guys is that they can play really badly or really well. Age leads tiredness which leads to inconsistency
Regarding floor masters, go to USCF-MSA and look up Oliver Chernin. He's been on his floor for some time (note to those outside New York -- this is Oliver Chernin, a local master, not the famous GM Alex Chernin), and he was on the floor when I played him in the Marshall Chess Club Championship a month ago. But while visiting the Marshall last night, I was stunned to find that he won a tournament last week, defeating DeFirmian and Braylovsky (who's rated near 2400). I remarked to another member how unusual it is for anyone (even a fellow GM) to beat DeFirmian, and the guy just said, "It was a Dragon." That both helped explain things -- Chernin is a Dragon specialist -- and made me feel better about having survived (with a draw) my recent game with Chernin, in which I essayed the Yugoslav Attack despite knowing no recent theory.