If not forever at least until 2014, which is where the new FIDE world championship plan leaves off with ".. and so on." It may as well say 3014 from an organization that has changed its world championship format three times in the past year on paper and three other times in practice in just three years. Knockouts and round-robins and matches, oh my! FIDE prez Ilyumzhinov has signed off on "Proposal A," which won out by a narrow margin over "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and "Preparation H". Since it's from FIDE it's definitely from outer space, but it remains to be seen if this new world championship scheme will relieve the painful inflammation in the chess world. (The instructions read "Apply directly to Azmaiparashvili and Makropulos, repeat as necessary." And "Don't Sit and Suffer" would be an excellent motto for this FIDE.)
a2. 2009: The winner of the "a1" match plays a World Championship match against the winner of the 2007 World Cup which will be held in Khanty-Mansiysk.
a3. 2010: The World Champion (winner of "a2") plays a World Championship match against the winner of the 2009 World Cup
Rinse and repeat. A qualifying tournament on odd years, a world championship match on even years. Of course the real news is the first paragraph, which shouldn't be news to anyone reading this. Topalov gets to challenge Kramnik if Kramnik wins Mexico City and Kramnik gets to challenge anyone else. This does create the tasty irony of Topalov having to root for Kramnik to win the tournament. Kramnik is getting a rematch clause, as predicted. (The sound you heard was Garry Kasparov's head exploding.) This is a reward in exchange for Kramnik's playing in Elista and Mexico City. This means there will be a Kramnik match in early 2008, at least if reality for once resembles FIDE plans. Either Kramnik against the Mexico winner or Topalov against Kramnik, unless Topalov's bank guarantee expires. So even the succession purists can take heart. There's less good to be said about the freakish World Cup system they're using to find the challenger.
Matches are good, but it's a little amusing to see Kirsan claiming that this was reached after discussing it with the players. This is literally true, although most of the players I hear from prefer any system that gives them the most chances to play and that lowers the priviliges of the incumbent. This will change if the matches lead to big time sponsorship that trickles down to the qualifier and to other events. I.e. a WCh qualifier with a two million dollar prize fund is a lot better than a world championship tournament with exactly the same format and a prize fund of one million. You don't often hear professionals who have mouths to feed blathering on about Steinitz because Steinitz doesn't pay the bills.
I'm very glad they ditched the over-ambitious tournament championship for now. The schism and not having a unified world champion has been a huge problem. FIDE splitting the title into pieces itself would be phenomenally -- if typically -- self-destructive. The "FIDE Masters Cup" mentioned by Ilyumzhinov sounds nice but is just another slice of pie in the sky. FIDE needs to show they can sell a working championship calendar first. Bessel Kok is moving forward and the 2007 World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk seems to be on solid ground.
On the tournament front, don't forget about the Grand Slam plans to unite several traditional tournaments and create a Masters event with the winners in Bilbao. I'm enthusiastic about it but can't speak on the chances. They issued a very brief release during Corus that said it was going to happen in 2008, but I was hoping for some details. Are they following the original outline, which said the top players had to appear in all the events or none, or is it just the winners playing in a final event? The players generally refuse to organize for their own benefit and many of the game's politicians are crooks. There could be worse things than people with a proven track record of bringing in money getting together.
TD points out below that the FIDE Masters Cup is scheduled to clash with the Grand Slam final, ticking off the Bilbao organizers. Only in chess can we have conflicts about events that haven't even come into being yet. I say who ever can show more funding first, wins.
Mig's blogs are..ROFL!!
I am a big fan of the traditional system but I am sure that, except the world champion, none of the other top GMs will like it too much..Therefore, a good mix would be a tennis-like structure with tournaments (grand-slams, masters, etc.) but with the world championship being decided in match play following a Davis Cup format but spread over two years: http://www.daviscup.com/about/
While this makes more sense than anything FIDE has come up with in the last ten years, wouldn't it make more sense to have Topalov replace Kramnik in Mexico and have the winner play Kramnik for the title?
What I haven't seen commentary on is that, in one scenario, Kramnik has to play three world title defences in three years, plus Mexico (plus 2006). This is when he wins Mexico in 2007, plays Topalov (a1) in 2008 and wins that, plays the winner of WC 2007 in 2009 (a2) and wins that, then plays the winner of WC 2009 in 2010 (a3). At this point, he gets a year's break.
Now, I'm all for regular and not infrequent title defences, but five in five years (last year's match + Mexico + 3 in 3 years) seems a little tough. Kasparov had a legitimate beef about that wehn he had to to do it in 84-86. The problem is that all the required preparation is going to really hurt that person's (whether it be Kramnik or somebody who wins one of the early ones and then keeps holding on) participation in other events if they want to retain the title.
Hmmm...I'd have to disagree that progression into later stages of a championship system should be based in any way on team success as in the Davis Cup. That tournament is more of a sideshow with a nationalistic bent rather than a serious attempt at determining tennis' best player, and we already have the chess Olympiad for that sort of thing.
Not to inflame Topalov's posse and spoil the thread, but why exactly has he been granted this rematch priviledge if Kramnik wins Mexico? The man had his chance and lost, end of story. After he and Danailov's circus antics it eludes me as to why FIDE is so eager to pander to them. FIDE must feel something is owed between his absence from Mexico and the quashing of his late rematch bid.
Davis Cup Structure is surely better than the Proposal A, but only for identifying the challenger. I, for one, am a staunch treditionalist, who believes that the World Champion should cool his heels for the duration a challenger is identified, and also, that the rapid play games do not have a place in the World Championship Match (WCM). Instead, if the WCM ends in a draw, an extra Armageddon tie-breaking Game with CLASSICAL Time Controls should be played in which the Challenger would have White pieces but would require a win for winning the WCM while the World Champion will have Black pieces and would require at least a draw to keep his Title.
BTW, what proposal 'B' ACP is talking about? PLEASE SOME ONE TELL ME
Malcom,
Kasparov-Karpov played 120 games in five years (1984-87) at an average of 24 games every year. Kramnik at the max. would be playing 62 games plus 5 rapid tiebreakers in these five years which is more or less the half of the load Kasparov Karpov duo had to manage.
Kramnik isnt going to play in Mexico.. he will cede the title and get rematch in 2008.
This will give him time to rest and shut out Topalov for at least 3 years....
Davis Cup format is good for the Chess Olympiad that is going down. It´s better there because if your country is weak you heard that they reached the 97th place and nobody gets excited with that. But at Davis Cup format at least your weak country won to the 115th country and you feel well.
The matches. If Kramnik wins he has to play three years in a row. It´s Ok. He has to play what he didn´t play all this years.
CG, I didnt mean having a team event for the chess players..Just replace countries with individuals. This way, the world champion and other top players will not have to start among 128 (or whatever number FIDE comes up with) players..The top players should be happy, there can be matches instead of tournaments, purists will be happy, etc.. The only thing is that it will take time and the system is slightly complex..but if a 'Grand-Slam' style system materializes, that can take the spotlight and this can please the connoisseurs..It won't be too messy because in any on-going cycle, there will only be 16 players in the race for the crown of world champion...again, http://www.daviscup.com/about
Maybe replace 'previous WC' with 'current world number 1', hopefully Anand!
Foolish gripe: Not to inflame Topalov's posse and spoil the thread, but why exactly has he been granted this rematch priviledge if Kramnik wins Mexico? The man had his chance and lost, end of story. […]
You're a good example of the case when occasionally people sound smart, but actually they're fools [D. Rumsfeld was a typical example]. On this forum rdh asked the same stupid question. Well, you find the answer. If you're such a "critical thinker" perhaps you might ask yourself and answer your own rhetorical question whether a player who lost his title in a match is not entitled to a rematch? What do you think? Now that I broke the obvious question…
D.
Sorry, Dimi, too thick to understand. Say it in English?
If you mean do I think Topalov should be entitled to a rematch just because he failed to beat Kramnik, then the answer is no.
It is worth noting that the new FIDE Masters Cup is timed to clash directly with the new Grand Slam Final in Bilbao (whose organisers are apparently fuming).
So what happens to the 1 million dollar rule? The one that says anyone above 2700 can challenge the champ if they put up the cash.
It's hard to believe FIDE will abandon this rule, and deprive themselves of the 200 grand they'd be getting with each match.
And speaking of Proposal A and Plan 9: I think 'Plan R' from the movie Dr Strangelove also comes to mind when we mention the achievements of FIDE.
WILL ANYONE KINDLY TELL ME WHAT ACP MEANS BY PROPOSAL 'B', REPEAT 'B', IN THEIR PRESS RELEASE, REACTING TO FIDE'S PROPOSAL ON WC CYCLE, HERE:
http://www.chess-players.org/eng/news/viewarticle.html?id=609
Hey Hansie :
Why don't you ask the ACP officebearers ?
Their contacts are enclosed in the weblink.
http://www.chess-players.org/eng/news/viewarticle.html?id=22
Thick skulled rdh and the like,
Topalov gets a match with kramnik because he won San Luis and he was deprived of his chance to play in Mexico City.
"perhaps you might ask yourself and answer your own rhetorical question whether a player who lost his title in a match is not entitled to a rematch?"
Nice, Dimi. I take it you feel that if Kramnik loses to Topalov next year, he should get a rematch.
"Topalov gets a match with kramnik because he won San Luis and he was deprived of his chance to play in Mexico City."
And sadly another 12 outstanding GMs will be deprived of that chance in Elista this summer.
>> This does create the tasty irony of Topalov having to root for Kramnik to win the tournament.
It also creates the possibility for Kramnik to choose his match opponent. If Kramnik is tied with someone going into the last round of Mexico, he could drop his last game in order to face that person rather than Topalov. I don't think he would, but the scenario is there.
Interesting, Tassie!
Dimi,
Dimi, that Kramnik should also not be entitled to a rematch did not escape me. I feel it's reasonably justified though because prior to Elista he had the only title worth anything, and as numerous people have pointed out, he's basically being forced to defend it twice within a year, or three times within two years if he's successful. Compared to the match system that FIDE is reverting to, the Mexico tournament is an aberration which must be fulfilled due to prior commitments with sponsors. The probability of Kramnik losing is much greater than in a match, so FIDE is throwing him a bone for playing along to keep things in order.
It is really more sensible that Topalov plays in Mexico instead of Kramink and then the winner plays a WC match against Kramnik in 2008.
Cynical gripe: Kramnik... ...prior to Elista he had the only title worth anything,
Biased. I disagree.
Cynical gripe: and as numerous people have pointed out, he's basically being forced to defend it twice within a year, or three times within two years if he's successful. Compared to the match system that FIDE is reverting to, the Mexico tournament is an aberration which must be fulfilled due to prior commitments with sponsors. The probability of Kramnik losing is much greater than in a match, so FIDE is throwing him a bone for playing along to keep things in order.
It's difficult to discuss a system that is so convoluted that it will be hard to follow who won what and when. And how much weight to be assigned to that... Bottom line is that whatever tinkering was done to the system it still excludes the #1 (or #2, whatever) player and by itself is silly. Still in the bigger scheme of things, Topalov was shafted by being refused a rematch and excluded from competing.
------------------------
rdh: If you mean do I think Topalov should be entitled to a rematch just because he failed to beat Kramnik, then the answer is no.
Is that based on principle like "no rematches", or just in the context of this convoluted WCC cycle?
-------------------------
Y. Kleyner: Nice, Dimi. I take it you feel that if Kramnik loses to Topalov next year, he should get a rematch.
He should. If the stars align right and such a situation is reached, he should get a rematch. Of course, I understand that the convoluted system will leave no space for such fundamental elements of the "match tradition" as a "rematch". Therefore, I am concentrating my attention to the big tournaments because I truly believe that with this formula they're making somewhat of a joke of the whole process.
D.
How convoluted is it? Tournament, winner plays world champion in a match. Repeat with two-year frequency. The tournament's (ie: World Cup's) structure can be subject to some changes and improvements, but the basic idea is not that complex.
According to that logic, which many, many, many subscribe to, including myself, then Topalov ought to play in Mexico City instead of Kramnik.
There are just these "short-term" contractual difficulties to overcome, which difficulties have been permanent since 10 years and continuing perpetually...
Mig, you states Kramnik gets a rematch clause. I haven't heard about that; can you explain? It certainly can't refer to the Mexico tournament, since that is clearly not a match (There can't be a 're-' if there never was a match). If Kramnik loses there then he is still the classical world champion and it is the winner of the Mexico event that is the challenger (regardless of how FIDE wants to view it).
Mexico is the FIDE world championship tournament. The winner is the FIDE world tournament champion continuing the line of Khalifman, Anand, Ponomariev, Kasimdzhanov, Topalov. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong Kramnik as the world matchplay champion playing in such a tournament.
Also from now on the winner of this type of tournament plays the world matchplay champion, but contracts have been signed, so that Mexico has the right to acclaim their winner as a FIDE world champion.
Those who like the Steinitz tradition can continue to think of Kramnik as world matchplay champion regardless of who wins in Mexico - especially since FIDE have now accepted this concept again, and FIDE has found a form of words to ensure that Kramnik will be involved in the first world matchplay title match when the new system begins.
I imagine that if you put Kramnik by name in a special position as the person with the right to challenge the winner of Mexico, then FIDE might be considered to be breaking their contracts (i.e. Kramnik really is still the world champion regardless of the result in Mexico, and Mexico is just a candidates tournament). So instead they put the "previous world champion" in the special position as the right to challenge the winner of Mexico. For those in this thread who think that Topalov should have no rights, this is difficult to accept, but if it was necessary to ensure that Kramnik was in the first title match in the new system then I think it is a price worth paying for preserving the spirit of Steinitz within FIDE.
However I suspect that Kramnik will find it difficult to win in Mexico, and Topalov won't get his immediate rematch. Mexico will be about the same strength as Morelia/Linares - and if Kramnik is on form he will probably get a +2 result with very few losses. But somebody almost always does better than that.
I hope it will be Anand who wins in Mexico - that is the one match we haven't seen between the top players of the last 10 years. He and Kramnik just need to be persuaded to play all the games to a finish...
Alternatively I hope to see Shirov win and finally redress the injustice he suffered back in 1998, but that seems extremely unlikely. He has an extremely tough quarter to even get into the Mexico tournament.
"If Kramnik wins in Mexico, then the right to challenge goes to the previous World Champion, ie Topalov."
May I read "If Kramnik wins in Mexico, then the right to challenge goes to the previous World Champion, ie KASPAROV."?!
I want to see Kramnik win in Mexico but then I want to see him play a match with Anand not Topalov.
If Topalov cheated then he stole the title from Anand in San Luis. Then the Elista match would have been with Anand and now the next match will be stolen from Anand. That will be 3 stolen matches from Anand by Topalov. Not fair.
Topalov should be banned from chess for 3 years for breaking the Fide ethics rules.
Fans now want to see Anand get his chance before he is too old. Anand has definitely been at the top for many years. No one else deserves a match with the champion more than Anand. Topalov cheating and stealing all this away from Anand is simply not fair.
Thanks dirtbag, I'll do that.
Fide has proposed a single tournament to identify the challenger. As it is based upon RRs it suffers from obvious defects. It would have been better if it would have been split up into two stases, 3-4 months apart.
Stage I: World Swiss Cup
- A 14/16 round swiss system tournament in which the top 100 rated players as per the current/latest rating list plus one player each from the countries whose players do not figure in the top 100 plus one each from the women's, under-20 and over-60, if not represented in the top 100, plus one additional player from the host country plus another player from the host country in case of odd number of participants Minus any Fide president's nominee.
Top 16 players qualify for the final stage.
As of today, top 100 players belong to 32 countries, so out of 159 member countries of Fide, 127 countries are not represented. Mercifully women and over-60 are represented in the top 100 and under-20 are in abundance. Therefore, as of now there would be a maximum of 228 entries for the world swiss cup, i.e., 100 + 127 + 1 host entry. And, yes, the World Champion would be most welcome, only his performance shall not be counted towards qualification but only towards prizemoney. Thus, the event would be a REAL World Cup and would attract sponsorship. The champion of a weaker chess country such as Malta, Nigeria or Barbados will have an opportunity to aim for the World Title. Thus, the world swiss cup would be PRACTICAL, EFFECTIVE, INCLUSIVE & UNBIASED.
Stage II: Candidates DEK-O TOURNAMENT
Not to be confused with candidates Matches which are long drawn affairs and unable to attract sponsorship. In this stage, a Double Elemination Knock-Out tournament (Prescription Sonas) shall be held to identify one challenger from the 16 candidates as per the following schedule -
Days 1-3: Round 1 - consisting of two classical games and one tie-breaker. Eight matches. Eight players advance to Winners' Bracket(WB). Eight players relegated to Elimination Bracket(EB).
Days 4-6: Round 2- consisting of two classical games and one tie-breaker. Eight matches, four in WB and four in (EB). In WB four players remain. Four descend to EB and join the remaining four. Four players doubly knocked and out.
Day 7: Rest#1
Days 8-13: WB - Round 3 - consisting of FOUR classical games and one tie-breaker. Two matches, two players remain in WB, two relegated to EB. Day 13- rest day for WB.
EB - Days 8-10 Round 3A - consisting of two classical games and one tie-breaker. Four matches. Four players remain in EB, four out. Total players out - 8.
Days 11-13 Round 3B - consisting of two classical games and one tie-breaker. Four matches. Two matches, two players remain in EB, two out. Total score - two remain in WB, four in EB, Ten out cold.
Day 14: Rest#2
Days 15-20: WB - Round 4 - consisting of FOUR classical games and one tie-breaker. One match, one player remains undefeated, shall go straight to Round 6. One relegated to EB - Round 5. Day 20 - rest day for WB.
EB - Days 15-17 Round 4A - consisting of two classical games and one tie-breaker. Two matches. Two players remain in EB, two out. Total players out - 12.
Days 18-20 Round 4B - consisting of two classical games and one tie-breaker. One match, one player remains in EB, one out. Total score - one player remains in WB, two in EB, thirteen out cold.
Day 21: Rest#3
Days 22-24: EB - Round 5 - consisting of two classical games and one tie-breaker. One match, one player remains, shall go to Round 6. One out. Total score - two player remain for Round 6. Rest fourteen out cold.
Day 25: Rest#4
Days 26-29: Round 6 - consisting of FOUR classical games only (NO tie-breaker - if match ends in a tie, the player from WB goes through). One match, one player remains undefeated, becomes the challenger, the other joins the previous fourteen.
Thus, we find a maximum of 18 classical games and 7 tie breakers in this tournament. Quite manageable, if we compare with previous FIDE world championships and World Cups.
Important points:
1. The tiebreakers shall consist of either four rapid games, followed by tow blitz games and a sudden-death blitz games OR a single Armageddon game at Classical time controls with higher rated player getting the Black pieces and requiring only to draw.
2. Before each & every Round, remaining players in the round (separately for the two brackets)shall be re-seeded as per their current seedings and paired as per the "highest versus lowest" formula. E,g., say, in for Round 4A the four remaining players were originally seeded #2, #9, #14 & #16 at the commencement of the tournament. The will now be re-seeded #1, #2, #3 & #4 for the Round with #1 playing #4 and #2 playing #3.
3. While pairing for EB, care should be taken that two players do not meet each other twice (prior to Round 5).
Merits:
The candidate matches have been criticised due to lack of sponsorship and for making the Cycle lengthy and unweildy. But this tournament being of a short duration avoids this criticism. Altough the Wirld Champion shall not be participating, but remember that Kramnik did not participate in Linares 2007 (and San Luis 2005).
Thus, this stage, too, is SIMPLE, PRACTICAL, EFFECTIVE, INCLUSIVE & UNBIASED.
The problem is, there would be few takers of this logical, practical and effective solution for the World Championship Cycle except the fans, sponsors and Kramnik. The persons who matter, like, Kirsan, Kok, Mig, Top players other than the World Champion, ACP and perhaps even Sonas, would dismiss this idea as millionth flight of fancy regarding the Cycle.
Oops!! Again posted double as in double elimination knock out. Sorry.
hansie:
Is the thing which you posted above Proposal B ?
Nope, dirtbag, it is Preparation H or Preparation hansie.
On a serious note, I have not contacted any ACP official but intend to do so in the next few days.