Mig:

"Danailov: And I won't clarify! Topalov and Kramnik is one and the same person. Ask the next question. " - Mig, I was the one who translated that, but I made a mistake - it was supposed to be:

"DANAILOV and Topalov are one and the same person."

Kramnik

NOT Kramnik, I meant.

As for the Mexico tournament - if I had to choose between screwing over one sponsor and screwing over Classical World championship, I would pick the former.

What is wrong with Roshal's suggestion of making Mexico tournament a candidates tournament where Topalov will play instead of Kramnik, with the winner playing Kramnik in a match? Everyone is happy. Organizers wanted Topalov, so they will get Topalov. Kramnik did not want to put the title on the line in the tournament, so he won't. FIDE wanted unification and it still will have it. And, last but not least, us chess fans who wanted match tradition to stay alive will get what we want.

Yah, sorry, copy-pasted and missed my own fix in the thread.

Mig,

"Sorry guys, I love matches but if we're actually going to build a pro sport here we can't shaft Mexico just for fun."

Shafting Mexico is necessary if we're going to fix what FIDE and Kasparov broke. No fan wants a champion decided by tournament. We want the best player as champion, and that's only possible to define by eliminating the random results that tournaments often produce.

"It's exactly the sort of thing that scares sponsors away from chess."

Sponsors are scared away from chess for all the right reasons. Anyone who thinks that Mexico as a single event fixes that is in a dream world. The fans want a match champion, and as long as that merket exists, we'll have one. Until FIDE wakes up and provides for that in their championship cycle, chaos and uncertainty will be the norm.

"They've already been shivved by FIDE having this unification match (and threatening to have another with Radjabov). Consistency and transparency are prerequisites; we cannot fudge on these essentials to spat about format."

You can't have consistency unless you have a format. Right now we don't. FIDE's format is a joke and everyone knows it.

"If Kramnik didn't want to play there he shouldn't have played in Elista."

Why? Kramnik was the title holder of the only lineage that mattered. Why shouldn't he try to make peace with FIDE? But if FIDE isn't going to honor the lineage of his title he need not simple acquiess to the sullying of that title.

The ball is in FIDE's court. They can either fix the format so we can move forward or not.

"After 13 years of schism and chaos, having a well-funded championship tournament is hardly the end of the world."

At no point during those 13 years was there any question who the champion was. A double round-robin tournament might be a way to pick a challenger, but it's only the title match that decides the champion, and any student of the game knows that.

Because they have already bid and largely paid for a world championship. They have spent considerable money promoting it and reserving venues, etc. T-shirts have been printed, ad space reserved, staff hired. You don't suddenly scratch over "world championship" with "candidates tournament" and hope nobody notices. World championship puts butts in the seats and gets global coverage. Linares does not. Wikj aan Zee does not. San Luis did. Rule #1 is DON'T SCREW THE SPONSORS BY ACTING LIKE SCHIZO NUTBALLS. Or at least that should be rule number one.

If Mexico weren't already in motion, great, petition for a match all day all night. Heck, even do so now for the next cycle. (Lest we forget, this cycles was originally supposed to end with a match according to FIDE's own regulations.) My record on matches vs tournaments is quite clear. But you don't screw a signed and paid sponsor and then wonder why we can't find support for events and why events keep disappearing or switching to rapid, etc.

I just want to see us be able to build something instead of fighting for scraps of spoiled meat. 12 (11...) game matches in Elista? Matches in Brissago with a qualifier base of a dozen elite players instead of hundreds around the world? London with no qualifier at all, unless you count the one Shirov won and didn't get paid for and that wasn't honored? That's what has happened to the classical match tradition. It was so sick it was poisoning the rest of the patient - combined with FIDE's incompetence and the schism of course. We can't make the second step of a fresh start screwing a serious sponsor just because we want a match that doesn't even exist. Kramnik had one remote, underfunded, largely ignored match in six years with nothing even on the horizon for another crippled one, let alone a broad cycle. We have to deal with the reality that FIDE and Mexico City exist and that that step has already been taken. It's not the best thing but it's a good thing.

>>
Shafting Mexico is necessary if we're going to fix what FIDE and Kasparov broke. No fan wants a champion decided by tournament.
>>

Has anyone thought of asking them what they want? Say "Hey Mexico. Which would you rather have? A Championship Tournament in September with no Topalov, or a Candidates Tournament in September WITH Topalov, and a Championship Match later?"

If they pick the latter, no shafting is necessary.

David, who is "everyone" if there is massive sponsorship for San Luis and Mexico City? It's time to wake up and realize that the match tradition matters much more to some partisan diehards, including me, than to the rest of the world and the rest of the world pays the bills.

As for delusional, the statement that there was no confusion about who the champion was from 1993-2006 shows you are living in a very, very small bubble. For the past 13 years the chess world has shown it can't be trusted. Breakaways, corruption, dictators, contract violations, scandals, etc. These things matter. Sponsors have stayed away in droves. Continuing that tradition by screwing Mexico in order to have, maybe, eventually, another impoverished Kramnik match nobody cares about is not success. FIDE just had this match and has put match challenges into the regulations. It's hardly a longshot to believe long matches will return to the top if sponsorship can be found for them. But that won't happen if we keep shooting ourselves in the face. You don't dump a sponsor and event that has already been lined up, especially when you have no good alternative.

>"Danailov: And I won't clarify! Danailov and Topalov is one and the same person. Ask the next question. "

What a plainly irrational moron, I bet he is not married or if he is his children are planning to kill him.

>Sorry guys, I love matches but if we're actually going to build a pro sport here we can't shaft Mexico just for fun....

The problem is that we all love WCC matches.
Sponsors, spectators, and world champions.
What Kirsan-FIDE wants is unrealistic. If they dont change their attitude the next match will be
"Kramnik-Anand" and it will be sponsored by some patriotic Indian millionaire, with FIDE out of picture.

Well, if Mexico gets demoted to candidates tourney, too bad for the sponsors. But it is partly their own fault because they trusted Kirsan. Maybe if they actually researched Kirsan, they would not be making T-shirts this far in advance. Even if the sponsor will be disgusted and never sponsors any chess again, I am sure chess will survive a loss of one sponsor. I am not sure chess can survive a loss of classical title.

Perhaps handpicking or having an Elite qualifier like Dortmund 2002 is not democratic. But FIDE championships were democratic. And yet when the democratic FIDE title faced off against the undemocratic classical one in Elista, classical one prevailed. Perhaps we should get our priorities straight - do we want World championship to be a competition that is democratic or do we want it to be a competition that ensures that the best player in the world (or one of the really best if there is no single best) holds the title? FIDE KOs were democratic, and they game us the dynasty that included Kasimdzhanov, Ponomariov and Khalifman. Classical tradition may have had flaws, but it made sure that champion was deserving player, and most of the time, it was the best player, too.

Screwing over one sponsor (who should have known better anyway. It's not like Kramnik wasn't in the picture when they decided to sponsor the event) or screwing over some 150 years of match tradition (depends how you count it. La Bourdonnais, Morphy etc.?). It's ridiculous to even ask the question. The Mexico City World Championship is a no-starter (Qualification tournament ok why not?). Hopefully. It opens the door for FIDE to hi-jack the title for whatever Las Vegas Jackpot Championship. Kramnik needs to guard the traditional title and re-open the schism if he is forced to do so. Thought that should be obvious to anyone interested in defending the integrity of the title. It's not even worth a debate. Matches will always generate more interest than tournaments. One major problem with PCA/APC was that they didn't have full backing, they were not fully recognized and the title wasn't unified. Unification should fix that problem and not open the door to de-valuing the title. Hopefully Kramnik understands this and will firmly defend the integrity of the traditional line of World Champions, Kramnik himself being the 14th.

Would Kasparov had put his Title on line in 1999, in a World Championship Tournament? In order not to screw over sponsors or whatever? FIDE have done a fine enough job in that as it is. De-valuing the title would only complete the task, and would hardly attract more sponsorship money in the long run.

All right, here is an "ideal" solution:
We introduce the new title "Absolute Champion", obtained through matches only.
Topalov replaces Kramnik in Mexico city, which will be considered the next FIDE Championship tournament.
After that we get the match in Elista between the 'FIDE Champion' (it would be real fun to get Topalov first again), and the FIDE Absolute one (Kramnik at the moment) for the title "Absolute Chess Champion". Kirsan covers expenses and brings the prise fund. Both players are under obligation to play (mine-detectors and random noise generators, mounted into all seats, including the watercloset ones, are mandatory). If the FIDE Champion rejects to play, he loses the title to the FIDE vice-champion from Mexico, who will also replace him in the match with Kramnik. If the Absolute Champion rejects, the match to be played between 2 top players from Mexico (FIDE Champion, and Vice-Champion).
Something like Superfinal after the final ;-)
But Krsan shall guarantee (if his word is worth a penny) that none Rajabov will climb until FIDE Champion plays the current Absolute Champion!
Happy smile :-)

Yes, it is a valid question:

What would Garry do?

Besides, without Topalov, the #1 on the rating list, it will be a compromised tournament anyway. Why should we throw 120 years of chess history into the trash can for just one tourney that is supposed to be a WC, but won't even have the world's number 1 player? All of this because, I, an average fan, should give a damn if some rich Mexican dude doesn't sell as many T-shirts as he hoped? I don't think so. Matches, please.

My idea is similar to what we got in HNL. We have the Championship (who remembers these Champions?) which also serves as qualifier to the Stanley Cup.
In Russian chess, they also currently have the Championship superfinal after the final.

Why not declare the winner of Mexico City "The World Tournament Champion", and Kramnik "The World Match Champion", so that the sponsors of Mexico City can be happy, and Kramnik keep alive the glorious tradition that goes back to Steinitz.

Unlike many, I do not blame Kramnik for playing his superior hand. Just because he has the advantage doesn't mean he should roll over and not stand up for himself. If he doesn't want to play a classical match instead of a tournament, then he has the right to say so. If FIDE gives him everything he wants, who is to blame?

You're blaming the sponsors for trusting Kirsan for the screwing *you* want to give them! He hasn't said anything of the sort and I don't expect he will.

Actually Kramnik wasn't in the picture when Mexico City got involved. The unification match came as an unpleasant surprise.

I imagine Garry wouldn't have agreed to play in an Elista unification match under FIDE or signed a contract to play in Mexico City. That is, unless he planned to play in Mexico City.

If asking for matches made them happen that would be dandy. It doesn't. It hasn't. A cycle-free match every five years is not acceptable.

Topalov gambled his title and lost. It's stupid he won't be there, obviously, but it's not the end of the world. It's not as if the universe stops expanding in Mexico. So far the arguments are "I'd rather screw a sponsor and have no event at all than Mexico." Nihilism. "Mexico should suck it and be a candidates event and Happy McMagic should sponsor a championship match in Fantasyland" is also nihilism unless you have Happy's phone number and a good way to convince Mexico and the other players (the ones Kramnik is always defending) to be happy about the demotion.

There hasn't been money for matches for years and fragging a championship sponsor now isn't exactly going to make it rain money.

Okay greg, but what if it turns out, as it's logical to assume, that the Elista player contract says "the winner of the match is obligated to play in the 2007 world championship tournament in Mexico City" and has Kramnik's signature on it?

I think the damage done to the Mexico tournament was in staging the unification match in the first place as it opened the possibility of a Kramnik win and his certain refusal to put his title on the line in a tournament. As Mig has said further damage was done by opening up the challenge match possibility (USD 1 million + >2700 grading). Its nonsense - if Topolav had won against Kramnik then Radjabov had beaten Topalov then Anand won in Mexico you would get 3 different World Champs in 1 year. Gibberish. I guess if Kramnik signed a contract to defend his title in a Mexico tournament he is going to face legitimate criticism for refusing. But are Kramnik's commitments so clear cut? What did he actually sign up for? Does anyone know the small print. I ask this because Kramnik himself has stated he needs to go and look at it. I would be surpised if its really as simple as "I agree to play a match for the world title and the winner to defend that world title in a tournament in Mexico"

After Alkhechines death, has there not been a tournament to decide the WC? If that would be true, we would have a "Präzendenz-Fall". So not in every case, a match is needed to determine the WC.

Kramnik probably can use every change of the regulations to bail out of his obligations. Look at his argumentation with Kasparov rematch, he said: "Since Pono match did not happen as signed, I have no more obligations".

So if Topa is accepted in Mexico, or the candidate procedure changed, or the weather is not as fine as signed, he may bail out.

He is strong enough now to take the title with him, now where he has both titles, the classical and the Fide WC.

but my feelings tell me, that Mexico is dead in terms of determination of the classical champion, the #15. And that arguments of a famous chess journalist who may have personal interest can not change that

Mig, do we know if Kramnik HAS TO play in Mexico according to his contract? Kramnik seemed to not know that himself, as he answered the questions about his intentions by saying he would "(re)read the contract".

I am saying if Kisan demotes Mexico to a candidates tourney, it is Kirsan's fault that the sponsor is screwed. Kramnik did not agree to anything with Mexico organizers, as far as I know. Just because Kirsan promised a WC tournament to Mexico doesn't mean Kramnik has a moral obligation to participate. Even if Kramnik indeed signed up for the WC tournament, I think after the way FIDE treated him in Elista he has every right to renegotiate with Kirsan.

As for the money for matches, I think it wasn't that bad recently. They just played one, and they had multiple offers, I thought. Kramnik-Leko found a sponsor for their match, and I think Kramnik made more money there than Topalov did in San Luis. Now Danailov is talking as if he found a sponsor already. Azeri's were ready to sponsor Topalov-Radzhabov match, and I guess they haven't given up on Kramnik-Radzhabov. If anything, I would think that it would be easier to find sponsors for WC matches than WC tournaments.

The thing is, if we abandon matches now just for this one tournament, we will be screwed after this tournament is over - especially if it will be won by a relative underdog. It is a lot easier to find sponsors and generate interest while the title is still alive. Let's say someone like Naidich will win Mexico. Where do we go from there? Will we wait for Kirsan to go back to matches after - and what is guarantee of that? Or will we have to wait until 2 of the better players play a match a la Steinitz-Zukertort. I think chess only survived the reign of Khalifman,Pono,Kasimdzhanov because the classical line was still there. Had FIDE been the only game in town (whether it was KO or Linares-like tournaments), fans would lose interest quickly. I, for one, don't know if I would even follow chess if there weren't WC matches to look forward to.

If Kramnik has signed to play in Mexico 2007 and forfeits it then FIDE will to sue him, and Zukhov will phone Kirsan to remember him that Kalmykia is on soviet territory.

now seriously, it would be very strange to have Kramnik not knowing what he is signinig, not being aware of assuming such a major obligation.
It follows that he did not sign such thing otherwise he would have not declared what he declared at the Moscow press conference

Maybe Kirsan wanted such thing to be put in contract as a condition to be paid for the Elista match but Kramnik said "sure if I can, but.." and brought his unstable health as an uncertainty issue and escaped it.
He outfoxed Kirasn too not only Topa.

>>
Why not declare the winner of Mexico City "The World Tournament Champion", and Kramnik "The World Match Champion", so that the sponsors of Mexico City can be happy, and Kramnik keep alive the glorious tradition that goes back to Steinitz.
>>

That's pretty much the compromise I did for my own webpage, to avoid questions about who the real world champion was, since, the titles were different in nature anyway. The only hiccup was Karpov 1993-1998, which really was a rival match title.

http://members.aol.com/graemecree/chesschamps/world/

http://members.aol.com/graemecree/chesschamps/worldtourney/

If Kramnik plays in Mexico, I'll probably regard that the World Championship Title has been retired, and update the World Tournament Championship Page after that, as being the only title. If, say, Anand wins in Mexico, he certainly won't be the successor to Steinitz.

But things could change. It's still just possible that the Mexico organizers would prefer an Candidates Tournament and a match to just a Championship Tournament. If they want to get Topalov, that may be their only option. Otherwise, continue on with the Championship Tournament, Topalov-free, as planned.

>> As candidate Kamsky pointed out, they've already reduced the prizes to below what players who finished below the candidates made in Khanty Mansiysk.

To be clear on this, did Kamsky and the other candidates receive prize money at Khanty Mansiysk?

Why can't the winner of Mexico be World Tournament Champion, who will at some later time play a match against the World Matchplay Champion?
However, not having Topalov in a World Tournament Championship would be somewhat absurd, so Kramnik - not the world's greatest tournament player - could do the honourable thing and make way for Topalov in Mexico. Problem solved. (One can at least dream...)

Winning a "World Championship" tournament is no more meaningful than winning any other super-GM tournament. If the match based championship ends, well, then to me there is no real champion and a long tradition has sadly come to an end. At that point, I won't really care if there's money at the top of the chess world. To me, continued schism is preferable to the death of match championships.

I think the idea of playing word games to make the Mexican sponsors happy is a good one. It won't fool them, of course, they'll have to be willing participants. "Tournament World Champion" has to play "Classical World Champion" in 2008 (or whenever). Make it contractual. Heck, even call it just "World Champion" but specify that the winner must defend the title in a match against the previous title holder (who, not so coincidentally won it in a match). Make it a once cycle only "rematch" clause (though "rematch" is really the wrong term). For publicity purposes, don't go around mentioning the 2008 match (so Mexico gets to keep the hype for awhile). Of course, all wishful thinking that I have no expectation of coming true...

All that ignores one of the main points, the cycle. Selling the match to Azeri oil money is not my idea of good sponsorship if it means there's no cycle. Kramnik getting more than Topalov ignores the paychecks that went to Anand, Svidler, et al in San Luis. The players in Khanty-Mansiysk and the hundreds who battled for spots in that event aren't very impressed with matches like London and Brissago.

The problem is there AREN'T world championship matches to look forward to. They have popped up randomly, twice in ten years and now this brevity and aberration of an Elista match. Look forward implies scheduling, a cycle, sponsorship.

Kirsan didn't promise anything to anyone. There were bids for the 2007 WCh and Mexico City won, and paid cash money and signed contracts. This isn't a whim. And if Kramnik signed a player contract to play in Mexico City it's going to be comical watching people try to make him out to be a hero for violating it. Have we lost even the pretense of professional ethics? Yikes.

maybe Kramnik will play but the he will demand that Topalov and Kasparov to be invited too in the final tournament

Wouldn't this idea of mine which I've aired before do the trick in keeping Kramnik in?

1. Kramnik promises to play Mexico and put his title in.

2. Topalov is allowed in.

3. In return Kramnik is allowed a rematch for the title against the winner of Mexico (God forbid he doesn't win himself!). The rematch should have no draw odds but be played with "Elista-rules" (incl private bathroom...).

4. Everyone agrees that matches are lovely and that tournaments for the WC-title should never take place again!

If Kramnik plays in Mexico CIty 2007 what then? Yerevan 2009? Baku 2011? Shanghai 2013? Teheran 2015? It opens the door to abandon the traditional line of Match World Champions. No Thanks.

Indeed, if Kramnik has signed such a contract, he will indeed be a hero to many chess players if he then goes on and violates it. It's not like FIDE haven't violated many contracts. Doubt Gelfand is the only one who's pissed off.

Mig,

You've often described FIDE's contract-writing shoddiness. The "contract" you're speculating about probably says, "If I win Elista 2006, I, Vlad, agree to play in Mexico 2007."

Lacking financial and other terms, would such a contract be enforceable? If not, Kramnik surely has no "good faith" obligation to go along with FIDE's WCC tournament plans after the outrageous treatment he received in Elista.

I am really starting to hate following top level chess. Mig seems to be the only one with a thimble full of common sense. Many of you on here are complete idiots. Sorry for the flame, but you make me sick. If Kramnik signed a contract saying the winner of Elista must play in the 2007 World Championship Tournament in Mexico City, and then starts spouting off this rubbish about..."I think Toppy the player ***deserves*** to play in the tournament for the right to play me in a match." -- then I say, Kramnik, you are a liar. Your word is nothing. Don't say one word about Danilov. It is perposterous to me that Kramnik could get a free shot at the title TWICE!!! (2000 and 2006) Then get "principles" about others needing to qualify.

Kramnik, "I believe that the old formula, with some corrections, was the most successful one..."

You make me want to vomit. If you have such firm convictions why not settle them in writing before playing in Elista?!?

If Kramnik did not sign contract committing to Mexico City 2007, then Kirsan is the biggest idiot on the planet!

Say no to any tournament for world championship. It is obvious that if any participant would see that he will not make it in the middle of the tournament then he more likely will play differently against a leader - thus winner will not be strongest player but the one against whom others played without necessary motivation! Only in match one will have the simple and only strategy – win more – loose less.

If Kramnik did sign an undertaking to play in Mexico City, he must play.
Strange if he did, but _pacta sunt servanda_ (a basic tenet of civil law: "pacts must be respected").
I would be hugely disappointed if after all the unpleasantness (to put it mildly) in Elista, Kramnik would tarnish his presently sterling reputation.

But then - let's get back to the match system, yes, please?

Mig,

I don't think Azeri money is worse than Mexico money, and the number of cycles they both guarantee is about the same - 0.

Speaking of matches, there were human versus computer matches that had big prize funds. It is not like Kramnik is a poor relative who has to go back to FIDE for the money. It would be interesting to compare the money Kasparov and Kramnik raised to what Kirsan has raised. I think, Kramnik is actually bringing the money back to FIDE and not selling out because matches are no longer in demand.

Try to be a bit less emotional and bit more reasonable Todd.

There are countless things wrong with tournament world championship. Imagine Topalov and Cheparinov in the same tournament, in 2009 say. Two curious losses against Veselin and playing rock solid against his nearest competitors. And Danailov has that smug grin on his face. Then Radjabov challenges Topalov for a match in 2010, then another tournament in 2011... it's an idiotic system, one that will only devalue the title in long term, and Kramnik shouldn't validate it with his participation in Mexico City.

CML: Thank you for demonstrating some common sense.

AZ79: We're not talking about 2009, 2010, or 2011. We're talking about 2007 and contracts that have already been signed. I agree that we need an inclusive cycle, and I see some value in the final match. Hand it over to Kok.

But it is absolutely too soon to talk about a "fresh start" if Kramnik is going to ignore his word. For example, if Vishy wins MC 2007, why should he have to play Kramnik when he has already been told and signed a contract to play MC 2007 ***FOR THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP***?!?

Start the new cycle and match AFTER everyone keeps their word and honors their contract, NOT BEFORE!

Mig,
You mention the irregularity of WC matches as evidence for going with Mexico as the WC tournament. How do you know that these WC tournaments will be more regular and dependable? This is only tournament #2. Wow, that's so much history here to look at as evidence. Personally, I think that assuming tournaments are better than matches because you can get sponsorship more easily is pure fantasy (especially when Mr. Kirsan himself is in charge).

That means the only reason to make Mexico a WC tournament is to help the sponsors sell t-shirts. I say too bad, there are more important things at stake in the chess world.

>>However, not having Topalov in a World Tournament Championship would be somewhat absurd,
>>

What's absurd about it? He got eliminated. It happens.

>>so Kramnik - not the world's greatest tournament player - could do the honourable thing and make way for Topalov in Mexico. Problem solved. (One can at least dream...)
>>

LOL. He already gave him a free point, and you think he owes him more?

You can't stick to the rules when it suits you and toss them aside when it doesn't. If you want to stick to the rule that this tournament has to be a championship, then we also have to stick to the rule that Topalov is out. All the way out. Completely. Because he lost. The "honorable" thing would be for him to live with that, especially since he claims to not even care about the title, anyway. And let's face it, Topalov owes us an honorable gesture much more than Kramnik does.

OR, if that's not satisfactory, we might come to a mutually agreeable conclusion, like the compromise that's been suggested. Put Topalov in in exchange for making this a Candidates. If that's not acceptable, then Topalov stays out, and Kramnik should insist on it.

It may seem honorable to you that your enemies should give you anything you want no matter how badly you treat them, and ask for nothing in return, but really, we're talking about the World Championship, not the Never-Never-Land Championship.

Insomniac says, "there are more important things in at stake in the chess world."

No there isn't. Just a bunch of idiots.

Todd, you seem to have a better idea of what Kramnik signed than Kramnik himself does. Maybe you should play instead of Kramnik, too.

I'm not using the regularity of anything, I'm saying MEXICO EXISTS ALREADY. Scheduled! Funded! Promoted! Staffed! Pretending it doesn't exist or trying to throw it away in exchange for fantasy matches (don't exist! unfunded!) on the other hand is nihilism.

I'm not even saying it's easier to fund tournaments since FIDE hasn't really tried to fund matches and is a disaster at finding funding in general. But when you already have a funded event you don't flush it.

Don't flush it, play it.

Call the winner "the world champion" (or "the Easter bunny" or "ham-and-cheese-on-rye" if you prefer).

Have the winner play Kramnik.

It's not that simple. That Kramnik fulfills his obligations and then the chess world can have a fresh start. By then Kirsan, for the first time during his reign, will be in control of unified World Championship Title, free to do with it whatever he wants. This is a man who believes he has been abducted by aliens, forces kids to study chess in school and in all probability uses state property as his own. A man with shady past and over-blown sense of self importance. In other words he quite simply seems mad. He wanted to play the Kamsky-Karpov match in Baghdad. One of the KO's was played in Tripoli (remember the problems the jewish players had with their visas). The Las Vegas fiasco proved he has no idea of the appeal chess has and it's target groups. He wants quicker playing times. Tournament world championships. Knock-out world championships. And the next day it can be something else. FIDE will have the final say and there won't be then no more Classical World Champion to restrict their movement and plans. There will only be one World Champion, winner of the 15 round chess super bingo. And in 1987 Kasparov and Karpov met in Sevilla and it was a fantastic match.

Mig,
What happens when, in two years, this tournament thing breaks down and Kirsan goes back to knockouts? At that point we have a new WC every year until Kirsan dies. Most chess fans probably couldn't correctly name all of FIDE's champions in the last 6 years without missing somebody. On the other hand, the last 50 years of real champions is clear, and all are legends.

My point is this - legally, Kramnik is bound by however whatever he signed is interpreted. In every other way it is a travesty to throw away the figurehead of chess, the World Champion decided in a mind-match, in this way. Even you, Mig, must realize this.

Well, 2008 summer Olympics in Beijing are also scheduled, funded, promoted and staffed. Doesn't mean Chess world will accept, say, a Gold medal decathlete as the Chess World champion in the Steinitz line.

I know, bad example, but anyway...

Mig ,the big question for you is: what is next? Assume Kramnik plays and does no win. What is next?

Mig:

agreed Mexico should be played. Is it possible, thinkable at least for the event to be held as BOTH a qualification and a final match? As in: hold minimatches (4 games) in a knockout system, or play a double round robin, in order find a challenger for Kramnik (include Topalov), who will proceed to play the winner, say a week or two after the event? Maybe a month? Maybe instantly? That would give Mexico organisers their multi-player tournament spectacle AND a world championship match.

Just wishfull thinking I suppose as this would cost twice the moeny already invested, but as a theoretical idea?

regards,
Sander

Mig:

agreed Mexico should be played. Is it possible, thinkable at least for the event to be held as BOTH a qualification and a final match? As in: hold minimatches (4 games) in a knockout system, or play a double round robin, in order find a challenger for Kramnik (include Topalov), who will proceed to play the winner, say a week or two after the event? Maybe a month? Maybe instantly? That would give Mexico organisers their multi-player tournament spectacle AND a world championship match.

Just wishfull thinking I suppose as this would cost twice the moeny already invested, but as a theoretical idea?

regards,
Sander

Sorry, how can I/ Can I? kill double posts?

I have learned that Topalov and Kramnik have signed identical contracts with FIDE for the Elista match.

That's why Topa knows about the contractual obligation of the winner to play in Mexico. Kramnik is making a joke of himself when saying that he doesn't remember what he signed...

Mig,
Are you claiming Kramnik has a contractual responsibility to play in Mexico and put his Classical title on the line there? These are two different things of course. I'm not saying he doesn't-I have no idea, but for those of us who have not heard anything about this contract (and find it a bit hard to believe that he would have signed such a 'long range' contract when the status of his title was undetermined at that point) could you please clarify so we know whether you are making any sense?! ('screw over sponsors..shouldn't have played in Elista..')

And how did you learn that Topalov and Kramnik signed identical contracts, Giannis?

Insomniac, it just happens that I have pretty good sources in Bulgaria too! :-)

Russianbear i am with you on this one, maybe we can offer the Mexican sponsors some new t-shirts

The Dutch arbiter of the Elista match, Geurt Gijssen, proves once more how full of crap were Kok and Seirawan: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3436 Kramnik's claims had no legal basis at all...

>>Wouldn't this idea of mine which I've aired before do the trick in keeping Kramnik in?
>>

Kramnik might agree to it, but the other players wouldn't. They take on an extra burden (having to defend in a match), but they get no benefit in return. Instead, all the benefit goes to a guy who's not even in the tournament, who's been eliminated fair and square.

"The Dutch arbiter of the Elista match, Geurt Gijssen, proves once more how full of crap were Kok and Seirawan: Kramnik's claims had no legal basis at all..."

Looks like you misread it. All it says is that the arbiter himself had no choice but to act as he did. He never says the Appeals Committee made the right choice, which is what the lawsuit will be about. In fact, he said the opposite, that from his viewpoint it didn't matter one way or the other. Looks like you saw what you wanted to hear.

With all of the talk about FIDE going into a tournament format for the world championship permanently, I think it's worth pointing out that the world championshop format changed all the time even during stable times:

http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/wcc-indy.htm

First you went from a tournament to match play, then you went from a round-robin candidates tournament to candidate matches, then you went from one interzonal to multiple interzonals...and so on. Most of the changes were minor, but some of them were fairly significant leaps, like the candidates tournament to candidates matches one.

I don't see any reason why there would be a permanent shift to tournament play even if Mexico City is regarded as a full world championship. I think aiming for a match in 2009 or even 2011 has far less potential of damaging the professional chess world.

There was a great deal more attention for Toppy-Kramnik than there was for San Luis, and sponsors are going to pay attention to that, as long as they don't get blown off (i.e. getting their events downgraded). There's always the chance that the Mexico City organizers could agree to change the format (perhaps if they could get both a tournament and the susbsequent match for no extra cost), but that's a long shot to say the least.

I think it's much more wise to aim for the next cycle to re-institute match play.

Hello,
I hope you did not miss me much, nor my comments clearly biased towards Topalov. All the 4 things (rating, title, etc) don't matter. All that matters is that Topalov showed champion's play while Kramnik defended like a little dog. Kramnik should be ashamed of his style of play and should retreat the title immediatelly, apologizing that he forfeited the 5th game. He should also apologize to Danailov for his arrogant behavior and should go play in some regional Russian chess league. But not that strong one. And he should hope every game to finish draw or call for help the Kremlin mafia.
Topalov is the best thing that has happened to chess. 12 games 11 novelties, most of them fantastic ones. Anybody who cannot see that has go back to the drawing board.
Topalov is clearly the strongest player at the moment and he deserves to be number one because of his beautiful play.
Long live King Topalov

Daniel,
What makes you think that once the last Classical Champion (Kramnik) is dethroned (hopefully in Mexico, if Ilyumzhinov has his way), Kirsan and FIDE will switch back to matches? Kirsan's power is increased if the champion turns over every year, so he has little benefit to strenthening the influence of any other champion on the game. I suspect that the only reason he was willing to put the FIDE title on the line this time in a match was because he felt that he finally had a champion that could beat Kramnik (took about six tries to get one that made it seem possible). Fortunately, that plan failed....

You shouldn't forget that FIDE made all those changes to the world championship format in order to diminish the prestige of the title and the influence of the World Champion (in short: to prevent a new Kasparov...); the weaker the position of the champion, the more power the FIDE bureaucracy will have.
We are not there yet. Tradition has won an important victory, and I hope that Kramnik uses the prestige of his unified title in order to preserve that tradition, not to destroy it. One should also note that an important change has occured: he now seems to have institutional backing.

I hope that Topalov will play in Mexico (without him the legitimacy of the tournament would be greatly diminished, in my opinion!) and I also like the idea of calling the winner "Tournament World Champion" who then becomes the next challenger of the "Match World Champion". And the Mexicans can be happy because their tournament will be a world championship, after all.

Kramnik had to either allow a rematch to Topalov (respect the match
tradition) or enter Mexico (tournament tradition). He can't have it
Kramnik's way forever, whatever is convenient at the moment, most of
all no new match soon... He is not Kasparov to do whatever he wants --
(1) he doesn't have the credibility for that and (2) the entire idea
of unification would be a sham that he willingly participated in.

D.

"At no point during those 13 years [of schism] was there any question who the champion was."

Probably not, but his parting with FIDE, then later going on to lose his own title match, meant that you suddenly also had two other people laying claim to being the champion ;->

Wow, you guys keep the flame going...

My ideal format would be -- tournament to define the winner to
challenge World Champion. Ultimately, I like the "match" tradition the
best. Tournaments are prone IMO to be skewed by the de-facto formation
of teams based on temporary interests/affiliations. Unfortunately, the
time-honored match tradition has been abused in the past few years and
is effectively broken right now.

Mig's comments about Mexico already been "sold" as the de-facto World
Championship are very important though. It looks very bad to backtrack
on that original advertisement. Anand, for example, already declared
that to him Mexico is the venue to project the new WC.

As far as Topalov -- he lost, so he has to get back to the chess board
and see what he can do there. For him it's back to square one.

Noting the attitude towards contractual obligations that Kramnik's
base projects demonstrate clearly to me that while Topalov has a lot
to learn from Kramnik on the board, Danailov has even more to learn
from Kramnik's team on how to screw the World smoothly and appear
virgin at the end.

Kramnik has to either allow a rematch to Topalov (respect the match
tradition) or enter Mexico (respect FIDE's tournament tradition). He
can't have it Kramnik's way forever, whatever is convenient at the
moment, most of all, no new match soon... He is not Kasparov to do
whatever he wants -- (1) his meager victories do not have the
credibility for that and (2) the entire idea of unification would be a
sham that he willingly participated in.

D.

Elitsa, I don't mind us being biased towards Topalov, but let's not
get silly. Topalov's so called "Championship Play" was simply a loss
to a more "complete" player. Unless this is well understood, history
will be repeated. I suspect that Kramnik knows what he's talking about
when he described some of this flashy novelties as mediocre moves. I
am glad that in the last interview Topalov suggested that he
understands part of his problems.

D.

2Mig. I agree that Kramnik of course should play in Mexico, unless all parties (organisers, all candidates, FIDE) will say it is OK that he will not play.
I made some comments in today's issue of Komanda (in Russian); comment from Ponomariov is of more interest probably. Sorry, I have no time for any tranlations at the moment...
http://www.komanda.com.ua/chess/2006/10/17/mnenie/

"It would have been nice to hear him say how much the title meant to him and how badly he wants to get it back in a fair fight."

Well: what if he really considers rating to be more important? Why not? For me, rating is very important. (Not mine... I do not remember it anymore. But I remember my best rating indeed).

2548 ?

Strange to discuss that with a GM. Ratings are not such a good tool to tell about a player strength. Petrossian was indeed world champion, unbeatable in match, but a lot of people were rated (or would have been rated) higher than him.

Furthermore, with somebody like Kramnik having decided, as a general strategy to take little risks with white and zero with black, it's difficult to set a precise value. Is Kramnik worth 2800, 2850 or 2900 ? Nobody knows as long as he hasn't decided to take risks.

But one thing is clear : he's worth much more than his 2750. He was able to defeat in matches both Kasparov, 2849 at that time (and at his best level ever since after the London match Kasparov won Linares, 3 points above the second), and Topalov, 2813.

To know who's the stronger player, the most reliable data is the head to head record. Kramnik is positive against Topalov, Kasparov and Anand.

Topalov cares about the rating? Kramnik does not, and never did. Kramnik cares about being the successor of Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. In that glorious lineage, Topalov is nobody. Shall I add ... like Leko, no more no less?

Welcome Topalov to the land of the nobodies.

The problem faced by Kirsan's FIDO and by Mexico 2007 is that words have definitions.
By definition, no "Tournament" can confer any "Match" world chess championship title. The chess public will not accept it. The outpouring of support during his match with Topalov demonstrates this.

FIDO is merely creating a new kind of WCC title; which is of little or no interest to the historic Match WCC title. Heck the Seattle Chess Club could also create a new WCC title if it was silly enough to bother.
It is a question of which WCC title the global chess public will respect more. I believe the public will side with the long traditions of history, instead of with Kirsan.

Fine. When Mexico 2007 begins, Kramnik's Match WCC title goes into suspended storage where it will be owned by no player. Mexico gets to transfer Topalov's "FIDE Tournament WCC" title to a new player.

The current plan really cheats the Mexico sponsor. Chess enthusiasts around the globe will ridicule the WCC claims of this tournament, more than tainting its prestige. Plus the winner will get less prestige than he would get by additionally earning a challenge opportunity for the one genuine Match WCC title that matters.

Steinitz and Zukertort created the Match World Chess Champion title, FIDO did not. Kirsan certainly did not. S & Z created their title to be a match title.
Yes 1948 was a tournament exception, because Alekhine was dead. But now in 2006-2007 Kramnik is still alive.

Gene Milener
http://CastleLong.com/

Topalov comes off as surprisingly childish and sour-grapes ("now that I've lost the WC, it's suddenly worthless!"). Kramnik's not perfect, but he's much more of a gentleman. He does not downplay his opponents' achievements. In my opinion, Kramnik is right to deny Topalov a rematch. Screw him if he insists on acting like a jerk.

I agree with 'Ruslan'. Ratings are over-rated.

I could not care less whether Petrosian was ranked first on some mathematical formula during the 1960's. Petrosian beat Botvinnik, period.

Andy Soltis published in Chess Life an article explaining some of the baloney that goes into ratings.

Ratings are warped by players who dodge certain tournaments in favor of others, due to considerations of how each choice would affect his ratings.

In some years there are players who play less than they would like, so as to avoid a possible decline in their rating. How is that good for chess?

I am sure tennis player Stan Smith values his 1972 Wimbledon victory much more than someone would value once being ranked second or first in the world by the ATP computer system.

Just a thought...but wouldn't Svidler and possibly Morozevich amongst others possible 'not' try to win Mexico in order to let Kramnik screw FIDE? I wonder...Leko is moral, but I don't think the others want Topalov on the pedestal dictating with Kirsan in the near future...

Insomniac,

I don't, to be honest with you. However, changing the format of the 2007 cycle wthout the consent of the Mexico organizers won't make sponsors more likely to give money toward chess events, and that lack of sponsors would surely increase Ilyumzhinov's power.

"the title itself is nothing for me. "

If true, this is the sad! And he was ranting about how kramnik was disrespectful towards the match? idiot, terrible ambassador for chess.

The idea of shafting Mexico is overrated. When they signed a contract to host a tournament for the "World Championship", the "World Championship" referred to in the contract was the FIDE Championship ONLY. They did not sign a contract to host a tournament for the Unified Championship or the Classical Championship. FIDE did not have those titles to sell when the contract was signed.

So give Mexico exactly what they paid for: A tournament for the FIDE Championship title. This would have the effect of de-unifying the title again temporarily, until the winner of that tournament played another unification match with Kramnik for the Unified Title.

Why can't Topalov play instead of Kramnik. Mexicans are happy and Kramnik is happy.

Mig if you read this, please delete the above post. I should get into the habit of reading what comes before! Thanks.

It is absolutely ridiculous to have a tournament for the world championship, when there is already a standing champion. Topalov played his aggresively-pragmatic/slightly-unsound style at San Luis, and it worked there - but look what happened to him against Kramnik. It didn't fare well against one focused opponent (who was the better player). His comments now, and the shameful actions of his manager during the match, reflect his inability to recognize defeat.

To be the man, you should have to beat the man. And the man is Kramnik, the only player to defeat a 2800 player in a match (and he defeated two. Mexico should be a candidate's tournament, and the winner faces Kramnik.

The Mexico tournament is funded, scheduled, promoted, and staffed. The t-shirts are printed. And we don't want to stiff a sponsor. The Mexico WCC tournament will happen. A few questions remain:

Should Topalov be invited?
--Why not? Even Kramnik's in favor of that.

Should Kramnik participate if he is legally bound to do so?
--Of course.

If Kramnik is not legally bound to play in Mexico, is he nonetheless ethically bound?
--After FIDE's conduct in Elista, obviously not.

If Kramnik is not legally or morally bound, should he nonetheless participate in the Mexico WCC tournament?
--No. The only reason we had the Elista match is because Kramnik did not play in San Luis, preserved the classical title, and stayed out in the cold. If Kramnik does not play in Mexico and goes back out into the cold, Kirsan would again be pressured toward a) another WCC match and b) a candidates match system. If Kramnik plays in Mexico, we'll never see another FIDE WCC match. (Kramnik's absence from Mexico would not hurt the sponsors, who prefer Topalov.)

If Kramnik skips Mexico and FIDE continues its tournament WCC tradition, (San Luis, Mexico, _____) what should Kramnik do?
--Stage a qualification event and play his fourth world chess championship, in 2008 or 2009.

Ultimately, a consistently successful Kramnik, less polarizing, more diplomatic, backed wholeheartedly by his own nation and many others as well, might be able to learn from Kasparov's mistakes and form a stable, functioning alternative to the hopelessly corrupt FIDE.

regarding to the ireful Geurt Gijssen's notes.

I've made a small record Yasser Seirawan online comments during game #9 on this subject.

you can listen to this recording at:

http://odeo.com/play#channel/138120

hope, this will be interesting to those who didn't have a chance to listen Yasser's commentaries online.

Suppose the Mexico tournament was a godawful one-round ladder blitz where rock paper scissors was used as tiebreak. Let's further suppose that it was sealed, signed, paid for, delivered, bought and ready to take place tomorrow.

What would you as chess fan say? You would say: "Who cares? Having a tournament like this is the same as having no tournament at all!"

Not fair to the sponsor? Offer the sponsor to host the championship match instead. Explain how chess fans and general public are drawn to those a lot more. Use Chessninja and other band traffic as support. If the sponsor says no, this isn't the kind of sponsor we want anyway.

Ultimately, the question of having/not having Mexico pales next to the question of Kramnik's ability to put on a healthy cycle. So far he has one short match after two years of seeking and one highly criticized abortion of a candidates tournament to show. All crazy ideas Ivanchuk-Anand-Kasparov round-robins and tournament formula similar to tennis went no further than brief mention. But now Kramnik seems a lot more focused on the situation, realize the importance of having a cycle and not distracted by off the board health issues. Let's see what he can do.

After the "Appellations Committee is completely wrong but can not reverse its decision" stunt pulled in Elista, there can be little obligation on Kramnik to play Mexico City.

I'm amazed how petty and downright vicious people get when dissecting Topalov's every comment. Obviously the title meant a lot to him. What do you expect him to say after losing the title game? Now I know why the yellow press exists -- people love to bite on a piece of dirt and chew on it forever. Next, all comments should go through a PR firm to mangle it into an indigestible politically correct nonsense that satisfies every idiot on Earth.

D.

Turn Mexico into a WC Match between Anand and Kramnik. that would be even better than the Mexico match as proposed right now.

Mext I want to say Mig that I am very disappointed in you and this thread. I remember reading a few days back that you are working for someone in Mexico tournament and that you were going to propose to them that they turn Mexico into a Candidates with Topalov and allow Mexico to sponsor a WC match with the winner of the first tournament and Kramnik.

Now you must have talked to them and you come back here really very heavy arguing everything in favor of the sponsors of Mexico. I know you are totally biased in this thread. I think you need to first state that in this thread. YOu need to tell us what happened and how you suddenly changed your mind.

For me. I do not want kramnik to play in mexico as now planned. I want kramnik to play match championships. I know that you felt this way very strongly just a few days ago. It is not totally honest of you to do a flip and not be open and tell us what happened.

I remember back when San Luis was played. after the tournament Kirsan was so pleased that the tournament received good press compared to the knockout format that he decided to stick with a tournament format.

I expect that Kirsan should now see that the Match format is hugely more impressive on the world scene than the tournament method and I expect that Kirsan should change his mind again and embrace the Match format.

Kirsan signed this agreement with Mexico at a time when everyone was saying it was so uncertain. In fact Mexico might have obtained this agreement without bids from other cities. When Mexico was announced everyone was surprised. it came out of thin air.

Mexico knew at the time it was signing a very risky contract. they knew things could go "wrong". and of course they are now trying to go wrong. Mexico should try to cut its losses short. it needs to seek a new compromise with fide. and then go on with life.

You mig must learn to support the correct thing for the long term. the correct decision for the long term is to stick with Match champions. Fide signed up the tournament with Mexico in an attempt to kill off the Match championships.

so I say tough luck. Mexico knew it was a risky contract that might not work out. and after signing fide had an opportunity to take a new big risk on Mexico by unifying the championship. well sometimes when you take risks you lose.

Now mig please tell us why you are so strongly changing your mind. what happened when you talked to the Mexican sponsors. they must have cried and you were sympathetic and joined their side of this debate.

Did I get a kick out of the above Yin-Yang battles. The Yins want to nurse the Mexican child and the despicably uncaring Yangs want to de-unify the title.

I am with those despicable Yangs, BTW. FIDE can stroke and fondle their tournament title as much as they want, I respect the match title only.

My reading of Gijssen's article is that he justifies himself, and not the decision of the Appeal Committee. Gijssen wrote several times in that one article about "...whether the decision of the Appeal Committee was right or wrong...I had no choice..."

Significantly, Gijssen attended Kramnik's post-match press conference in Moscow. It's not a stretch, I think, that with this gesture Gijssen tacitly hinted that own decision would have been in Kramnik's favour if he had a choice.

Who will think of the T-shirts?!

Oh, Mig will. Thanks, Mig.

Let's say Toppy stays out in the cold, Kramnik's bound to play in Mexico, and the 8-player double-RR goes off as planned in '07.

Kramnik has a decent shot of winning this tournament, doesn't he?

If he wins Mexico City, and declines to sign any more tournament-based championship cycles with FIDE, is this a problem?

Mig,

You're right about disappointing sponsors and organisers if Kramnik doesn't play in this tournament. But that is really FIDE's problem. Just because you plan event as a world championship tournament doesn't mean that it will be one.

I guess what I'm saying is, don't plan an event and be surprised when the classical world champion insists on a match. Don't insist on some sympathy "but I put all this hard work into it" vote, you won't get it from Kramnik, you won't get it from chess fans, and you won't get it from me.

Look at this objectively. The title is about 100 years old. Thats a 100 years of champions, matches, and chess history. Now we have FIDE, which in the year 2006, saying that because of all this work they put into the Mexico tournament we should scrap the 100 year history. Now who's being fair.

Mig, what you're asking isn't fair to Kramnik, it isn't fair to the fans, and it certainly isn't fair to chess.

Quotes from a noted chess writer about FIDE, Kirsan, sponsors, long matches, etc.:

"I truly hope this [Kramnik-Topalov match] is for real, and that it is a success immense enough for FIDE to realize that matches matter and that this final tournament idea is a joke in comparison." January 24, 2006

"But Ilyumzhinov has long since made clear his dislike of long matches. As currently scheduled by FIDE this exception for unification [Elista 2006] would be the last long match for the world championship in chess history." April 14, 2006

"Then of course there are the concerns that handing Ilyumzhinov and FIDE the unified title so they can debase it with tournaments and rapid games isn't what the game needs." April 14, 2006

Its also worth mentioning that FIDE isn't a bargaining agent for the WC title. They don't have it now, and they didn't have it then. Kramnik is the world champion (he beat Kasparov and Topalov is WC matches, theres nothing disputable about that) and its worth consulting him on how the title he posesses will be challenged. Especially, if you're FIDE, considering every World Champion has been decided through matches and now you're booking and world championship TOURNAMENT??

"I'd like to see a match, but FIDE stabbed us in the back with the change to another final tournament instead of a match at the end of their announced cycle.....But it's more than the change itself, it's the illustration of how this FIDE cannot be trusted." November 21, 2005

"FIDE has announced a classical cycle, although they later screwed it up by swapping the final matches for another San Luis tournament. If Kramnik moves in with FIDE, the long-match tradition goes into a coma." November 16, 2005

"FIDE and chess politics have been corrupt for ages, but since everyone benefits except for the poor sponsors, whose money disappears, it continues.... For every sponsor that is brought in another dozen might be driven off by a reputation for graft and scandal." February 19, 2003.

Oh, and about Topalov's behavior. The students at Denker tournaments exhibit more professionalism in a tournament round than Topalov has in his entire career.

@ruslan

Viswanathan Anand beat Vladimir Kramnik 18 to 12, with 84 draws. According to chessgames, not sure if this includes/excludes rapid games).

Mig,

Agree to some extent with Frank H on this. You regularly dissed San Luis as just another Linares, but now Mexico is the Bees knees.

I realise you are employed by Mexico and have to toe the party line, but you shouldn't get prickly when people call it for what it is - BS.

FWIW, here's my solution

Topalov replaces (or preferably joins) Kramnik in Mexico for the Tournament World title.

Kramnik plays the winner of Mexico (IN MEXICO) for the Classical world title (unless Kramnik wins, in which case he is the undisputed WC).

Then we have the following 2 year cycle for future WCs

Zonals (+ some high rating players) to qualify for 80 player Knockout

80 player Knockout to 5 people.

Classical WC + loser of classical match + 2nd place in previous Tournament WC to join them for tournament WC.

Tournament WC (or 2nd place) to play Classical WC for title

This has the following advantages:

For Kramnik and match fans- the great Classical world title tradition continues. Also Kramnik or whoever the classical World champion is should have the right to play for the Tournament world Championship
For Topalov and those who want the next cycle to include the no 1 player - he is not eliminated from the next cycle.
For Mexico- they get two guaranteed world championships and the match would more than compensate for the demotion in status of next year's event.
For Kirsan- there is a cycle controlled by FIDE (preferably through Bessel Kok) and his knockouts live on.
For ordinary GMS- they can see a cycle that gives them a route (no matter how remote) to be WC.

The only people who I see being at a disadvantage would be those who have qualified for Mexico. This is where I see it all falling down as they will act in their own selfish self interest... (even Kramnik will do that, - it just coincides that his self interest currently matches the best interest of chess).

Oh dear- back to square 1

>"FIDE and chess politics have been corrupt for ages, but since everyone benefits except for the poor sponsors, whose money disappears, it continues.... For every sponsor that is brought in another dozen might be driven off by a reputation for graft and scandal." February 19, 2003.

very very wise this one, it should be engraved on the entrance wall of the building where FIDE dismantling were to be debated, to be kept in mind against would be "successes of FIDE" arguments

Revolutions and counterrevolutions of course break rules and contracts and existing arrangements and create new ones. The problem that all would-be anti-FIDE counterrevolutionaries* posting here have is that they don't have any GMs or serious chess organizers on board with them ready to trash FIDE and create the post-FIDE world chess organization of the future. The ACP is not on board with them, and no national federations are on board with them, and in particular the World Champion's home federation is not on board with them, and neither is the World Champion. The anti-FIDE counterrevolution is not about to take place.

No, GM Kramnik's "counterrevolutionary" tendencies do not extend further than to being ready to say, in the event of not playing in Mexico City or of not coming in first, "but I am, of course, still the real World Champion."

After San Luis, the number of people who were willing to say "but GM Kramnik is, of course, still the real World Champion" was not so great. Having beaten GM Topalov in a FIDE-sponsored match, GM Kramnik is now accepted by all as World Champion, but that does not mean that all of us who said after San Luis that Topalov was World Champion were wrong for a year.

Furthermore, let me point out that GM Kramnik obtained the right to play GM Topalov for the title by submitting a bid under FIDE's own rules. GM Topalov put his title at stake because FIDE's rules obliged him to do so. Wouldn't there be something a little bit odd about obtaining a title match by using FIDE's challenge process, and then saying, after winning that match and taking Kirsan's money, "but now we can forget about FIDE's process; in the future, I will play whomever I please"? About obtaining and winning a "Unification Match", in the full knowledge that FIDE was planning a WC tournament in 2007 and that the only title at stake had a 12-month sell-by date on it, and then immediately Disunifying again?

It seems to me that people's adherence to the two dogmas, the "FIDE owns the title" dogma and the "succession of match victories" dogma, varies greatly with the latest news in the chess world. When GM Topalov had a good victory in San Luis, and GM Kramnik played a drawn match with GM Leko in Brissago, the FIDElitists were riding high. When GM Kramnik wins a match with Topalov and Azmai's Appeals Committee loses the battle of public opinion concerning toilets, then the Successicrats come back strong.

But everything depends on the latest headlines. If Mexico City (without GM Kramnik) produces lackluster games and the winner is chosen by breaking a three-way tie, then the Successicrats will look good. But if someone exciting, like GM Carlsen, for example, becomes FIDE's WC-presumptive after winning Mexico City by two points, the FIDElitists will start to look good again, and if GM Kramnik then doesn't play a match with Carlsen, but plays GM Anand (who came in 4th in Mexico, say) "for the title" and wins on draw odds again, or (God forbid) has a flare-up of his arthritis and can't play matches for a few years, then the FIDElitists will be riding high and the Successicrats will be as unpopular as the FIDElitists are today.

The dogmatic FIDElitists have difficult days when whoever is at the helm of FIDE comes up with some unpopular and unclassical and arbitrary scheme for selecting the "World Champion", like the 128-player knockout system, for example, or when the Successicrat pretender to the throne looks particularly sympathetic. At the same time, however, the dogmatic Successicrats, like real-world royalists, are hostage to the desires, principles, prejudices, and good health of the individual monarch of the day; and some days you get Peter the Great, but other days you get Ivan the Terrible or Nicholas II.

If there is a synthesis to be gotten at, it has to be gotten either by (a) reformist means, i.e., winning FIDE over to a consistent match-play cycle, or (b) by making the counterrevolution, and (b) isn't happening, so we're back to (a). However, you cannot start to win FIDE over to anything by undermining the 2007 championship. The problems with FIDE are mostly due to the problems in the economic organization of top-level chess. Kirsan is not the cause of these problems, he is the product of these problems. Successful and prosperous chess organizers, in a positive media climate, will be more disposed to and more capable of further reforms.

In an ideal world (for chess), therefore, GM Kramnik would play in Mexico and make subsequent claims to be the World Champion only if he actually wins the tournament. At least for a while! :-) Nothing of course would prevent him from returning from exile like Bonnie Prince Charlie at some future date if FIDE's WC selection process becomes particularly insupportable, and its "champions" particularly touristy.

* I would say that the FIDElitist revolution took place in 1948, so the Successicrats would have to make a counterrevolution.

I have already stated before my opinion before, but here comes:

1)2007 Mexico is turned into a candidates event with Toiletl...ok, Topalov playing.

2)The winner, THE CHALLENGER meets Kramnik in 2008 for the Title.

3) A new cycle is formed to find a challenger. The cycle ends in match - WC match in 2011. (So a 3-year cycle.)

In case Mexico accepts to demote their 2007 event into a candidates event they should get the last bid for the WC match 2008...Meaning that after all the other bids have been published Mexico can bid more if they so choose.

If Mexico arranges the event without either Topalov (he can't be there..lost the match in Elista) or Kramnik (he shouldn't be there to devaluate the title) it's going to be a forgettable and somewhat hated event in any case. Is that what they want?

Also I would like to shoot down the idea of choosing a Tournament Champion: a great way of devaluating the Title is to add the number of them! Eventually no one is interested in it anymore, cos everyone else also has some stupid Boondock Redneck Championship Title in their pocket...Which reminds me of a real example: Some Accoona Blabla Franco-American Championship that took place a while back? What **** was that? Gimme a break! Is that what we want? Nonsense champions? Forgettable events? C'mon! Remember Buenos Aires 1927? Reykyavik 1972? Baguio City 1978? Seville 1987? New York 1995?

Mig writes as if it is an either-or situation- either you hold the 'championship' tournament in Mexico OR you screw the Mexicans over by holding the classical match. Why does it have to be either-or? I think the Mexicans have shown a deep understanding and love for chess, so I think they would be sensible and enthusiastic if FIDE came to them with the following proposal:

1. Hold the tournament (with Topalov) as a qualifying tourney

2. Mexico also gets to hold the world championship match (yes, Mexico would have to come up with the money for this match, but I bet they would be happy to do so)

3. Continue all following cycles in the same manner, ie. qualifying tournament with classical match following.

The one thing I really don't like is having several players from the tournament automatically qualifying for the next tournament. These few players (Moro, Anand, etc) get too large an advantage and take up qualifying spots that should be open to all players. These players should have had to compete again if they wanted a qualifying spot.

Also, if Kramnik does play in Mexico as things stand, then he is only putting up the faux-FIDE title on the line, not the classical title. Who cares about the FIDE title if it is worthless?

Toppy treatment

Dimi - the reason Toppy is getting so much flak for his comments is that most of Toppy's post match comments betray a lack of maturity. Look he lost the match obviously there are things he can do better next time. So the simple grown up response is "I lost the match I've learnt some lessons. I believe I can beat him and I will do next time" What did we get from Toppy? Before the match huh Kramniks rating is lower he is not a serious contender for a match. After losing the match? Huh my rating is still higher all he can do is +2 in tournaments I'll do better. Is this waht Kasparov said after losing the match to Kramnik? Not at all and Kasparov's rating was higher than Toppy's.

Mexico tournament

Much as I like Kramnik I think Mig is basically right - if you contract for a tournament then you should play. However Toppy cannot play - if you start breaking the rules to allow him in after he lost then I think the agreements lose validity. Toppy's absence should be no problem for the sponsor (s) they want a world title tourney and Kram earned his right by eliminating Toppy in a match. But does this mean that Kramnik if he doesnt win Mexico should be regarded as having lost his classical title - ah thats a different point I believe there's nothing in the contracts about that. The Mexico tourney is for the FIDE title. The best outcome is for Kramnik to compete and then a match to be organised between Kramnik and the winner or Kramnik and the runner up. this gives the sponsors their world title match but still ensures someone needs to take on Kram in match play. therefater the cycle which MIG has been pointing out has not existed for years can begin ........

Sory in my lost post I meant to write this gives th sponsors their world title TOURNEY not match

People, what are you talking about? Kramnik has already agreed that he will play in Mexico.

Wake up! There is no "classical" or "non-classical" title anymore...

I would agree that the most sensible approach is the one where the
Mexico Tournament projects the next challenger for a match with
Kramnik. Topalov plays of course, as the loser of the previous
championship match, now being part of the general population of
high-ranked chessplayers.

Makes perfect sense, BUT (!!) The real challenge -- existing
obligations.

How would the German organizers feel, for example, if FIFA suddenly
declared that the World Cup this Summer was not the event to define
the "Champion", but just the "Challenger"... Doesn't it fall in a
hurry from 1-st rate event to 3-rd rate, totally forgettable, "don't
bother me till it gets interesting" type of event? I guess so. Nobody
cares about the early stages, the attention (advertisement==$$$$$)
culminates at the end.

And then what are the expectations of the other GMs -- I suspect that
they didn't care who won the match T-K, but that there's finally a
unified system to declare a Champion.

On another note: why would the losing party of the Championship match
not be allowed to participate in the next round of competition?? What
is the logic behind this? I'm not disputing the contract, if it is
signed, it should be carried out. But I'm not sure what the hell this
concoction is all about?? In what other sport we see such things?

D.

Theodulf: very thoughtful comments, breaking the monotony of nonsense.

Andy: On Topalov -- immature, sour comments -- sure, I agree. But who
is foreign to them? Kasparov? Kramnik? Leko? Who? Why play the
torturer and overanalyze the comments of a person who just lost. When
Kramnik was down, he declared that he lost because he "just wasn't
himself". Fine. Let's move on...

Mr X: on a tangential, but important matter -- Mt. Toilet Seat is
Kramnik, not Topalov if you can swallow it.

Dimi: I agree, don't judge a man too harshly by his statements right after he loses, but Topalov's comments in general have had a distinctly nastier tenor than Kramnik's. I can't see someone like Anand or Leko being similarly sour-grapes after a loss, even in off-the-cuff remarks.

New BS from Geurt Gijssen. Sure, he has not to verify the decisions of the appeal comittee gang. Thats not his job. But he has to check if the playing conditions are appropriate before starting a game.

They clearly and openly weren't, and he could see this, and so he was not allowed to start the game. Error Geurt Gijssen

I'm trying to understand what could possibly be going on in Topalov's mind. Could he be so naive as not to realize the effect his recent words and actions are having on his reputation? Or might he be "evil"/ruthless enough not to care what anyone thinks? Is he so motivated by money/prestige as to want to win the title at any cost? Or is he childlike away from the chessboard, completely controlled by Danailov? (Seems dubious, yet in a way preferable to the alternatives.)

From someone as talented as he is, and with a long reputation for (especially relative to other GMs) decency, recent events just don't make sense.

Has anyone on this board actually met the former FIDE WC?

Reading the article by Geurt Gijssen, I disagree with him. It shows that Geurt does not know what he is talking about. He totally skipped over the central fact in this case. the fact that the contract was null and void.

I think Geurt was dead wrong.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3436

Frank, from where exactly do you get the impression that "the contract was null and void"?

No contract was null. Kramnik's reaction was based on an "ethical" point of view, not a legal one.

I guess the reason there has been such a reaction against Toppy's comments is that sense that being a top sportsman at the top of his profession there is some sort of responsibility to engage brain before speaking - to be a bit thoughtful. Anyway its over time to move on I for one will focus on his chess and forget about his comments.

As for the Mexico WCC it just seems a huge intractable mess. Respecting the agreements means a tournament for the WCC with Kramnik and without Topalov. It was what was signed up for - and everyone knew exactly what they were signing up for. Now with the result of the match people have problems sticking to their signed agreements. Oh Topalov lost oh dear that was not supposed to happen lets go back on what was signed and put him in anyway. As soon as you do that Kramnik can turnaround and say ah your changing things this tournament has to have Topalov because he has such a big rating ok I will sit this out and play the winner. As soon as the deal is changed for Topalov
its opening Pandoras box. Stick to the signed agreements put the ball in Kramniks court and see what he does. Of course Kramnik talking up the inclusion of Topalov is a part of a cat and mouse game but its a big mistake to try to include Topalov.........

yeah, Geurt Gijssen going mad!

now he has written this silly letter it is most obvious he is not capable of his job.

He was not famous for thinking anyway, but this is bottom line. He is not bearable as arbiter after this trash, he must retire.

he can't do the easiest things. If the appeals comittee gang would decide, "oh, we're playing without rooks this time, the decision is final" Geurt Gijssen would start the game. Stupid.

Instead he throws wild accusations to well known grandmasters. He disqualifies himself with this Amok-Run.

Mig sez: "Predictable but sad to see Topalov's remarks about the title vs rating. ....It would have been nice to hear him say how much the title meant to him and how badly he wants to get it back in a fair fight."

Exactly. This is the part that disappoints me more than the toilet crap (pun intended) because I could have been convinced that either a) Topalov honestly believed it (less likely) b) Was so hurt over the cheating allegations levelled at him that he wanted some return in kind (more likely). However I would have loved to see some grace and humility in the final reckoning, and acknowledgement that Kramnik is for now the top dog. At least Kramnik has acknowledged Topalov's chess ability, but I guess its easier to be graceful in victory than in defeat.

Incredible silly logic by Ellrond.

How can "closing a toilet" be the same as "playing without rooks"? Jesus, a big part of the population has been left with no brains at all...

I want to stick up for Geurt Gijssen I think he behaved impeccably and acted absolutely correctly and professionally within the limits of his role as defined by the rules. He had no authority to do anything else certainly not start determining whether the contract was broken or not. His brokering of a very short mutually agreed delay while Kramnik read Kirsans letter was the maximum he could do. Yassers's criticism of the Chief Arbiter were loose and unjustified and I am sure that on reflection he would accept that. He is a completely independant respected person and acted in an exemplary manner

Elrond - we all know closing the toilet was Kirsan's decision was and totally wrong but the Chief Arbiter was not the man to sort this out - that was not his job. Of course there are things that could have been done which would have made the Chief Arbiters job untenable such as removing rooks or having Kramnik at the chess table bound and gagged but closing the individual toilets was not one of those. In the event of an extreme change all the Chief Arbiter could do was resign Is that what you think he should have done???? As for Yasser - he his human (not a chess god)he made some mistakes on this issue and went public with some unjustified comments.

I agree that shafting MC would be bad for chess, and that contracts should be upheld, the question is: What is the alternative? Should the speed whith which Kirsan makes deals seal the fate of the WC cycle?

Envision this:
The last day of the MC tournament, someone or other won and Kirsan is announcing that he has signed a contract with North Korea for the next tournament. In two weeks. Or five years. And beacause the contract is signed we should simply play nicely. Oh, and and half the games will be rapids...

It is not a simple question of a deal is a deal is a deal. It is the infinately more horrible question of when do we draw the line.

Of course we are lucky enough to have a champion who have made that difficult choice succesfully, not so long ago.

Q

WC should be decided by matches (in mexico f.i.). Nuff said.

More thoughts on these matters from a noted chess writer:

"[FIDE] just released new guidelines for the 2005-07 cycle and the main change is that the semifinal and final matches have disappeared....This illustrates one of the often discussed fears of title unification under FIDE. They have no respect whatsoever for classical chess or the championship lineage. Even worse, they lie about it, as we can see from this spontaneous rule change.Losing the world championship match is the worst part. We have tournaments like San Luis regularly already and the championship should be unique." October 25, 2005

"And FIDE has lost interest in commercial sponsorship since the horribly mismanaged FIDE Commerce debacle. To aid your memory, that's when they put a buddy thug in charge of rustling up money and he promptly attacked traditional tournaments." November 15, 2005

"The FIDE edifice is hollow and condemned. It needs to be torn down so something decent can be built on the land, not propped up (new names with no power) or given a paint job (matches with no commercial sponsorship instead of a cycle). This isn't a matter of making the right move. For anyone who actually cares about the game it's a forced move." May 16, 2006

Greg,

Could this noted writer be blogmaster for a successful blog, have written for Chessbase and have strong Argentine links?

Does anyone actually KNOW what Kramnik has agreed with FIDE on his possible presence in Mexico? If his contract clearly states that he has to replace Topalov in case of a win then that's that. If not it is FIDE who has screwed up the contracts and bears responsibility towards the sponsor.

I do agree that contracts need to be honored if chess ever wants to be regarded as a professional, sponsorable sport. If everybody agrees on getting the matches back that needs to be fixed in the next cycle.

Unification. Isn't it great?

I'm with Mig on this. Can't they just play one cycle without changing the rules halfway through? If Kramnik doesn't play in Mexico he is as big a crybaby as Topalov. Why should everybody else have to wait until Kramnik is satisfied?

I'm all for changing the format of the cycle after Mexico though.

FIDE have already broken the contract with Kramnik countless times - re the bathrooms, giving Topalov's team full access to the video tapes, previews of the letters to Kramnik (source GG).

Why should Kramnik have contractual obligations to FIDE when they have shown a complete disregard for the above contracts? Also, if Topalov is added to the tourney, they will have changed Mexico irrevocably.

All these people who think FIDE will change the format once Mexico is over are living in cloud-cuckoo land. Trouble is all these people who jump in and out of bed with FIDE are going to get their fingers burnt - even you Mig.

Kramnik has defended his title twice in 6 years against people who have won qualifiers. He could also find sponsors and I'm pretty sure he could put his title on the line within 2 years. He is doing a grand job.

There's a small problem with that though. You won't change the format of the cycle after Mexico. Kirsan will.

To quote Mig himself (I presume): "They have no respect whatsoever for classical chess or the championship lineage. Even worse, they lie about it, as we can see from this spontaneous rule change. Losing the world championship match is the worst part. We have tournaments like San Luis regularly already and the championship should be unique."

"Then of course there are the concerns that handing Ilyumzhinov and FIDE the unified title so they can debase it with tournaments and rapid games isn't what the game needs."

-

Kramnik playing in Mexico would hand Kirsan the unified title. Those who insist Kramnik should play, yet want to protect the Match Championship, what do you not understand about this?

From flirting with Baghdad (and Saddam Hussein) in 1996 to toilet-gate in 2006 (Yes, it was Kirsan's decision to lock the toilets if you read Makropoulos) isn't there ample proof that you cannot trust the judgement, nor the honesty of this madman, and that you should think twice before handing him full rights to the unified title to do with it as he pleases?

The minimum requirement should be to get black on white guarantees from him that after Mexico 2007, the classical match cycle would be re-started. Although I wouldn't trust him on that either, and can't see the point of one World Championship tournament breaking the long traditional match cycle. Seems madness to me, and hardly could attract more sponsors in the long term.

Think Frank H's post was spot on. Mig's not being honest now. Seems obvious, reflecting on his earlier writings.

Geurt Gijssen seems to have acted as he was required but it is clear he did not agree with the decision itself.

If the title isn't important to Topalov, then why did he insist on continuing at 3-2 after the game 5 forfeit? Clearly, he would have been perfectly happy to agree with Kramnik and continue at 3-1.

At least Danailov got his come-uppance:

www.danailov-before-and-after.com

Apologies for this not being on-thread, but Short's column in the Guardian today says tersely: "Unfortunately, this is my last column for the Guardian. I have very much enjoyed writing here."

Anyone have any more information about this? Is it unexpected? By his own choice?

hey, got you up all, with Gijssen, good. At least Andi and Giannis caught the point here. It all depends of the severity of the breach of playing conditions. Without rooks, stop play. Without toilets, stop play or not stop play?

Gijssen does not even consider, that this depends on the severity of the disturbance. In his argumentation, he would accept any disturbance, if it comes from a decision of the appeals comittee gang, whatsoever decided, even without rooks. That is "Kadavergehorsam" and "put your brain of" mentality.

That he himself had to decide how severe the disturbance of playing conditions is, this idea is unknown to him.

If Topa-/Danailov think so low about the Title('Kramnik may have the title, but I am still number 1 in ratings and that is what counts), then why bother with a challenge for a rematch? I mean, if the title means nothing? Would anyone pay 1,5 million for nothing? Or better yet: would anyone pay 1,5 million for someone else to get a possibility to acquire something they don't even value at all? Topalov and his big mouth(=Danailov) are really a sad and ILLOGICAL pair.....or are they one these says? I'm confused...but I don't care! Crap is crap whether it's a chunk or two of it!

Theorist, I noticed that too- it is a shame as he always hads something interesting to write. This week's column has "paraskevidekatriaphobia" and "tergiversations"

I wonder if the fallout from the Kamsky conversation has reached Guardian towers

I have written to the Guardian saying that his column will be missed.

Shame that Barden wasn't pensioned off instead - he is so bland and I'm sure is just there because he is old and served his time.

A279,

I don't want to preserve the match tradition! I think the match tradition has been the main cause of the mess (as well as FIDE incompetence). If it's a choice between giving Kramnik control of the title or Kirsan, I'd rather give it to Kirsan. At least we might end up with a fair competition, rather than one player awarding himself huge priviliges. The mess can never be sorted out if one player considers himself above the rest.

Best of all would be to get somebody half-decent to run FIDE.

I am just amazed at the way Ellrond and others keep going on against Gijssen for not overruling the decision of the Appeals Committee, which according to the match regulations is the final authority. It's true that Gijssen could have resigned; if you want to get on his case for not resigning at least that would make sense. I wouldn't agree, but it would make sense. But don't pretend that Gijssen had some sort of legal right to overrule the final authority over the match! This is like complaining after the 2000 elections that the Washington D.C. police should have overruled the Supreme Court and arrested George W. Bush for keeping President Gore out of the White House.

Spud you said something like: '...with Kirsan we might end up with a fair competition, rather than one player awarding himself huge privileges.'

Hmm....Kramnik hasn't done anything of the sort -gathering privileges: he arranged Dortmund 2002 as qualifier and all the top dogs where invited -the fact that some didnt want to participate was their choice, but let me remind that also Topalov was there. When it comes to FIDE ....remember Tripoli....was it 2004 (sorry an easy-to-forget-and-should-be forgotten-tournament)? Some 'top dogs' (=were qualified) that should have been there, couldn't participate! Was that fair? (I am not pro-jew or against them either, but) to talk about fair when it comes to FIDE is a joke of a macaber calibre!

The debates on contracts fail to see the greater scheme of things which is that FIDE screws up everything, regardless of whether contracts are valid or not, or whether there have been any contracts at all or not.

The debates on investments fail to see the greater scheme of things which is that FIDE screws up everything, regardless of whether there have been any investments made by anyone or not at all.

The debates on contracts, investments and other mechanics fail to see that FIDE screwed everything up since 11 years, why support their whim