FIDE and its commercial arm Global Chess BV have announced the 2008/09 Grand Prix cycle. It's three classical, 14-player round-robins in 08 and three more in 09 from a field of 21 total players. (Cities and dates here.) The winner then faces the World Cup winner for the right to become the world championship challenger. (The World Cup KO is the unkillable vampire beloved of Ilyumzhinov and so continues to plague our existence.) I got a peek at the framework and prize money in Amsterdam a week ago and it's an impressive project. There are still a few kinks that might have to be worked out since the grand prize is such a big one. Namely, imagine a situation in which the two leaders aren't playing in the final event. Or only one of them is.
A formal series of pro events with standardized rules, players, and promotion is a major step for the chess world. It's all part of a real cycle that the world can learn to expect and trust as the real deal. Of course this isn't the first time, as those who remember the GMA World Cup series well know. Lubomir Kavalek was the main man on the organization scene then; now it's Global Chess with Geoffrey Borg and Bessel Kok. The money is very good and we'll see if it's enough to guarantee all the top players' participation. Years of pseudo-professional organizing (old-boy network, no standards from event to event or year to year, haggling for appearance fees instead of prizes, come-and-go sponsorship, etc.) has led to pseudo-professionalism among the players. It has its chummy charms, but it's not what a professional sport is made of.
What's the wish list for making this more than "just" a series of great chess events? How about a video team to produce a poker-style show with highlights from each event? Not talking the quick clips that appear nearly instantly now, as nice as they are. But good conditions for filming, including access to the players, serious post-production and editing with interviews, drama, voice-overs, and analysis. And yes, advertisements. Push it on the web at first, if nowhere else. Chess is too difficult to ever penetrate ESPN regularly as poker has, but there are more outlets now and web advertising is nothing to sneeze at. 100,000 downloads at a targeted, affluent demographic wouldn't suck.
The cycle needs to have a well-defined procedure of qualification. This Grand Prix rating-based thing seems OK to me. Maybe that's not perfect but that's indeed better than usual FIDE tricks.
I think Corus' idea of post-game analysis is great-they have to employ it.
As I understand it has to be 21 players
top 7 by previous (current) cicle: Kramnik, Anand, Topalov, Kamsky, Shirov, Carlsen, Karjakin; it is still open question about participation of Kramnik, Topalov and may be Anand (my guess)
top 7 by rating: Ivanchuk, Mamedyarov, Radjabov, Leko, Morozevich, Aronian, Gelfand
reserve: Adams, Svidler, Polgar, Grischuk
7 Nominees: 1 by FIDE President, and 6 by every tournament organizator: Gashimov (Azerbadzan), Al-Modiahi (Qatar), probably Navarra (Czehia), 1 from Switzerland (Milov?, Pelltier? Korchnoi?!) and two Russians (currenly Svidler and Grischuk out of Grand Prix, Alekseev? Yakovenko?)
Total 21 players; 6 tournaments by 14 players, every player will play 4 tournaments;
It is a pity that the United States skipped the organization of a GP tournament, in this case for example Nakamura could get 4 supertournaments in 2008-09 years,
what was the last american supertournament?
San Antonio' 72 with Karpov, Petrosian, Portish, Gligorich, Keres, Hort, Larsen, Meking and Fisher as a guest. It was before I was born :-(
Poker is *seriously* edited for ESPN. You probably see about 1/10th the hands, but they sell the sizzle.
Unfortunately, Chess will not work like that. You cannot sell sizzle to the generally ignorant (non-affluent) public, and the lack of the element of luck in chess eliminates basically any chance of some clown off the streets of Brooklyn winning a big event and a bunch of money, and that's the draw with Poker. You actually have a legit chance if you study proper poker strategy for a couple of weeks.
So the problem then becomes marketing it to actual chessplayers.
"It is a pity that the United States skipped the organization of a GP tournament..."
I was not aware the US was even given an opportunity to organize a GP event.
If they can sell Golf and Poker to TV then creative minds can sell Chess too. Use the same techniques they use to make these events interesting on TV, and admittedly chess will require some new ones.
One idea - an on screen meter showing a computer's current evaluation of the position. Half white and half black and the meter moves accordingly as the evaluation changes. Any spectator could understand that.
And of course you need commentators who are both knowledgeable and can make things interesting for the spectators.
That's just an example, but please don't tell me chess can't be a TV spectator sport. TV handled the right way can make anything interesting.
Mark,
an opportunity has not to be given, at first, organizers had to ask for that,
why Mexicans and Argentinians could run the World Championships and round robin super tournaments and Americans could not? Easy question
Hello Mig,
Chessdom says that Kasparov will participate in a simul. http://www.chessdom.com/news/kasparov-simul-czech-republic Can you give us more info? Thanks in advance
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
"If they can sell Golf and Poker to TV then creative minds can sell Chess too. Use the same techniques they use to make these events interesting on TV, and admittedly chess will require some new ones.
One idea - an on screen meter showing a computer's current evaluation of the position. Half white and half black and the meter moves accordingly as the evaluation changes. Any spectator could understand that.
And of course you need commentators who are both knowledgeable and can make things interesting for the spectators.
That's just an example, but please don't tell me chess can't be a TV spectator sport. TV handled the right way can make anything interesting."
Well put Ed!
One idea that comes to mind is knockout tournaments based on the handicap system so that in theory every player has an equal chance of winning first prize. Players would maybe not then mind the large entry fees a la some Poker tournaments resulting in possibly a huge prize pool.
Handicaps are allocated on the basis of player ratings. As you lose or draw your handicap score diminishes, when zero you are eliminated.
A super GM for example might start with 1 point so that he/she is eliminated after one loss or two draws. A lowly rated player may start with 6 points or more etc.
Of course this type of competition relies on fairly reliable and honest ratings.
A tiered system of qualifying tournaments, a la Poker again, would help to weed out rating fakirs and build interest and prizemoney towards the final.
You could win the first qualifier by engineering an artificially low rating before entry but then of course you would be re-rated upwards immediately for entry to the next tier.
As in Poker tourneys a second chance buy-back could be available to boost the prize pool.
You and Ed Seedhouse are 100% right - with a little creativity, and some high-class production values, chess can *absolutely* be sold as a spectator sport. I think the key is selectivity - there's about 1 million times too much information produced in any given chess tournament for even an expert chess player to digest - it's the producer's job to play up the drama of time-pressure, etc.
Another huge key would be promoting female chess players, and younger players of both sexes. Chess still suffers from the totally inaccurate stigma of being appreciable only by unhygienic, unlikeable middle-aged dudes. Highlighting the youngsters like Caruana and Rudolph would be amazing.
Absolutely no doubt this could be successful, but it would take vision. Problem is, chess promoters tend to be terrible businessmen, and FIDE is a bad joke. Chess would have to be taken out of the hands of its current "owners" to have a chance.
Are there any details on how the winner is determined for the Grand Prix system? Presumably points for placing and the winner is the one with the most points from 3 relevant tournaments competed in. The qualifying reserves may not qualify for 3 tournaments and this applies to city selections and presidential selections also? Any details on prize funds? Whatever it looks like a feast of top class chess. Perhaps it would be difficult for Kamsky Anand Topalov and Kramnik to make any commitments as they are each facing potentially 2 big matches over the next 2 years plus their regular big tourney commitments hard to see them signing up - but who knows?
Talking about making chess watchable on tv. Does anyone remember the BBC master game series. World class players would play a rapid game in the BBC tourney then immediately record their thoughts and analysis right after the game - this recording would would then be played over a presentation of the game as if the player were commentating live on the game. Each epsode was 30 minutes I think ..... the effect was brilliant as it captured the emotions of the players.
I never understood why they can't schedule "difficult" sports/games/chess in the middle of the night (with commercials). People who are interested could tape it and watch it later.
But apparently there is a large contingent of brain-dead zombies who currently need to be catered to instead.
I'll love chess to my dying day, but people who believe that it can be marketed as a spectator sport in the U.S. are totally and 110% deceived. Comparing it to golf and poker is asinine. Golf and poker (as well as tennis) have a long history and legacy in this country, not to mention a gazillion people (with money) who are involved in one form or another. The average person here wants action they understand and can watch on their widescreen, plasma, digital, blu-ray tv's. They still think of chess as a parlor game for old men with long beards, or nerds with ink blots on their shirt pockets. The recent pictures of Bobby Fischer on the network news and newspapers didn't do anything to change that impression.
There may be a revival (most likely not) like in 72, from time to time, that lasted about a year and then sank into the mire of forgotten fads, but that is about the extent of it.
No, it's action first here, and speed, bullet or "action" chess would just be looked at as some kind of amusement, not to be taken seriously by the masses, especially when one can watch Football, Basketball, Baseball, Volleyball, NASCAR, Tennis, Golf, Track and Field, Swimming, Ice Skating, Skiing, Poker etc.
"Why in the hell do we want to watch this chess thing? Turn the channel to bowling! I know it isn't popular anymore, but at least I understand what their doing! Set pins up, knock pins down, and bring me a beer!"
i've said it many times on this thread and will say it again:
just put chess on tv w/ simple, honest production. there's no need to don't dumb it down or add spastic commentary. the audience is there b/c everybody knows something about chess: how the horsey moves, the queen is powerful, the king is to be protected. ppl will naturally get into a well-made program, chess is a fascinating game, is it not?
The world cup (vampire or not:-)) is the only really open way to qualify for the World Championship. Anyone can participate in continental championships, and from there you qualify for the world cup. Winning the world cup you are in the semi-final for the world championship. So it really looks like the world cup is the formerlly known zonals-interzonals, or else, proper way to qualify. while the grand-prix is this "last chance tournament", a way to guarantee that the best rated players are in the cirle (and also a way to make some good tournaments and bring some money to top players!). Sure the world cup can be improved, but not droped completly. I believe that theoretically it should be possible for anyone to qualify (albeit by passing several qualifications).
Andy, all the details on prize funds and GP points are found here: http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=DD10
Esben
I'm quite sure that the only way to sell chess to general audience is to skip the chess part and give only the results. Optimally, it should be 1-minute lightning, or shorter, if possible. Draws not allowed, of course. Alternatively, the results could be generated randomly.
I can't help thinking of the big announcement for the 2002 Grand Prix (http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic378.html#4). Only two of the announced events took place (Dubai and Moscow) and the Moscow event was postponed at the last minute (after my ticket had been purchased and visa arrangements made). The involvement of Bessel Kok in Global Chess makes me somewhat confident that they will happen but as long as Ilyumzhinov (and his money) control FIDE, I take such announcements with large quantities of salt.
I don't think chess has enough of an audience to make it on TV. Chess is a long game and it is too difficult to follow.
But perhaps the question should be - why would chess fans want chess to be shown on TV? What is wrong with the existing formats? Internet radio commentary like what they have on chess.fm is fine with me. It is synchronized with the boards on ICC (well not completely, but I imagine that will get solved) - what more can a chess fan want? What exactly would be the advantage of TV? Seeing the commentators? No offense to Mig or others, but let's face it, it may be best NOT to see the chess commentators. There may be some entertainment value in seeing players react to moves, but I don't imagine it is that big a deal. Most of the time you just want to see the board and get the GM audio commentary, which is what you already get with Internet chess broadcast anyway.
I agree with the poster who suggested producing a simple tv program that addresses the game in it's current reality to chessplayers. It would be nice to have a simple 30-minute show called 'Game of the Week' hosted by an IM/GM pair that could get the basic ideas across in the game and do a little teaching along the way, interject some history, color, etc. And I completely agree it could find it's way on some cable TV station in the middle of the night. Advertisers like Monroi, Saitek, Excalibur, Wholesale Chess, House of Staunton, etc., could be approached for advertising monies to finance the show, or if that fails, perhaps someone - the friend of an ambitious IM/GM - get together with a local access tv station and produce it themselves...
I watched the Miami vs. Washington superbowl on replay last week and the coverage was, by today's standards, laughable, but you gotta START to get SOMEWHERE.
That's the problem. Everyone has ideas (including me) but nobody wants to actually start.
When we put the Aeroflot and Moscow tournaments on ESPN, maybe we can improve the production quality a little. This page, for example: http://www.aeroflotchess.com/photos/index.htm
the page title in my browser says '2006', the title on the page itself '2008', and the photos all '2007'. I'll even offer to fix all this stuff, correct the English. Just kidding, too busy with my *real* job.
Guys, this stuff ain't ever gonna change.
Chess is already in Swedish TV every week: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5632232598300834727
There is more than one way how you could commercialize chess. One of my own pet ideas is to establish a global chess league, where each city has a resident grandmaster, and a team of seconds. You could build up tension by following their preparation, and the main act would be what chess is best at - a match, a clash of personalities.
But seriously, Mig's suggestion is something that is possible and realistic. You would need someone to take the risk and put money into it.
Would it sell? We can't know, until someone gives it a try.
Chess may not be for the masses, but neither is golf, and golf does very well in the market.
People are passionate about gardening, skateboarding http://imdb.com/title/tt0275309/, knitting....
Marketing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail
Interesting info on the first gran prix http://www.chessdom.com/chess-grand-prix/azerbaijan
"Chess may not be for the masses, but neither is golf, and golf does very well in the market."
It does well in the market because it appeals to so many in America. C'mon, look how many golf courses there are in the U.S. Every city has one, two or three.
Not to mention there up and running every day of the week with paying customers. Look at the crowds at golf tournaments, and then think how many at a chess tournament. Of course it's popular on television.
I do agree with you that chess would probably be about as popular on television in this country as "knitting," both are sedentary without much action from the perspective the lay person.
Would I like to see chess flourish on television in U.S? Hell yes, I would love it!! But fantasy is one matter, reality another.
Don't just talk about it, take the time, energy and money just to get it started here and prove me wrong, I'll be the first to praise your accomplishment. Until then, it's fantasy.
Of course chess can be successful on TV .. it all depends upon how you present it.
- Trying to present an entire game will not work for the masses, no matter how expert the commentary.
- But just realize that TV thrives on drama .. and chess has that in abundance! I'm talking about the players, events, organizers, etc. And yes, even the games, as long as you don't present them as a chessboard filling the screen, with algebraic notation scrolling down the side, and commentators blabbering on about how weak black's dark squares are.
- You could easily do a 5 minute ESPN segment on the last Kramnik-Topalov encounter. Toiletgate background (big drama - these guys don't like each other), No eye-contact or handshake (bigger drama - these guys really don't like each other), brilliant sacrifice leading to a crushing victory (off the drama scale - Kramnik giving a curt interview, Topalov almost jovial, bragging about his home cooking in the opening). You don't have to know the difference between en passant and castling to find that story compelling.
- The point is that a TV broadcast designed to appeal to the 20,000 or so of us in the world who follow the every move of the super tournaments wouldn't have a big audience. But focus on the drama that everyone can relate to, sports fans or otherwise, and that potential audience gets a lot bigger.
If it's so damn easy, why in the hell hasn't it been done already people? I'm glad I asked, because it won't make money in the U.S. Crap, even the U.S. Chess Federation is in the red. Talk is cheap and it doesn't feed the bull dog. But if continually dreaming about it floats your boat, then by all means...
Nobody's done it because nobody high up in the USCF has what might qualify for a backbone. If we had competent, uncorrupt leadership, chess might be flourishing. The USCF has probably lost more money due to theft than they had at the peak of the Fischer boom.
Hey Andy, I remember the BBC Master Game series well and liked it very much. It's a pity that since 1983 there were no more of these TV tournaments. I watched the German television version and would recommend this kind of chess TV at every time! Alas, there is no more chess in German TV anyway, since the channel "WDR" ceased to produce further broadcasts. There used to be GMs Helmut Pfleger and Vlastimil Hort as experts - well, especially Pfleger was quite notoríous for his somewhat, hm, sedate style ;-) But they are missing anyway and cancelled the old men while not bringing up something new :-(
Chesstraveler: It isn't easy! It's very hard. And it has been done -- chess has been on ESPN. It will be again, hopefully bigger, and in a sustained manner.
Mike Huckabee's son hung a dog and Mike as governor let him get away with it!
http://huckabeehungadog.blogspot.com/
rp,
I know that some episodes have been on ESPN. I'm talking about something like a weekly program (long term) that needs a percentage of viewership to succeed. I don't see that happening in this country unless we experience a chess renaissance--much like what happend in 72--and take full advantage of it this time so that it doesn't end up in the trash heap with the hoola hoop, pet rock, tickle me elmo, etc...
Perhap the failure of chess in the U.S. can be attributed to the fact that we are still a young nation that was built on a frontier mentality; which didn't leave much time for the average person to appreciate the cerebral and leisure game that is chess.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, chess never became popular here and remains outside of the mainstream cultural appreciation.
And what the hell does Mike Huckabee or even John McCain, Hilliary Clinton and Barack Obama have to do with any of this, Boris?
Some years ago I had a meeting with the boss of Eurosport, one of the largest sports channels in Europe. I showed him some video footage I had then: some blitz games, and a demonstration vid made by "FIDE Commerce" (I don't remember the details, but Short was playing an exhibition game with someone else on that vid)...
I had my day and I was very convincing: The guy simply loved it. He told me they would be up to broadcast it, as long as it had no cost for them (same rule they aply to most sports leaving apart tennis and soccer).
If had came to him with something like this right them, I am sure chess would had been on the air. But then the situation was a total chaos, and there was no way that I, alone, could coordinate FIDE and chess organizers to share the costs of producing the video recordings.
Now that there is some new hopes, I will try to find out if the same guy is in charge. If he is, I think we should try it again...
Chesstraveler -
I agree with your facts, and your contingencies. So you should at least agree with me that the possibilities exist for successful commercial expansion of chess, including TV broadcast success. Like most others, I gave the New England Patriots high odds of winning the Super Bowl. But a victory by the Giants, was never out of the realm of possibility.
rp,
I wish I could agree with you, but even if the possibilities do exist, the probabilities would cancel them out. I hope that someday I'm proven wrong about chess and how it relates to enterprise and the market here in the States. Until then, and because of past experience and conditioning, I remain skeptical.
I did root for the Giants though, thinking their odds of winning were highly suspect. A great endorsement for what a winning defense can accomplish in a game.
Guys, did you see the list of cities?
April 20th – May 6th 2008, Baku, Azerbaijan
July 30th – August 15th 2008, Krasnoyarsk (or other Russian city), Russia
December 13th – 29th, 2008, Doha, Qatar
April 14th – 28th, 2009, Montreux, Switzerland
August 1st – 17th, 2009, Elista, Russia
December 7th – 23rd, 2009, Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic
Reserve cities are Istanbul and Teheran.
Gotta love Ilyumzhinov... For completeness, they should replace Krasnoyarsk, Montreux, and Karlovy Vary with Kabul, Pyongyang, and Khartoum, and call it the FIDE Freedom Trail.
I agree. How can they place important chess events in countries you can hardly even pronounce? Just proves that FIDE officials are completely crazy.
nice attempt at sarcasm, acirce, but you obviously completely missed my point. it had nothing to do with pronunciation or obscurity (if you actually read the last sentence of my post and/or looked up the cities i suggested in case you didn't know them, this would be clear), but with fide's penchant for hosting tournaments in countries with repressive dictatorships, openly racist policies, and so on, just because that's where the money is. there was the chess olympiad in united arab emirates, which promptly banned israeli players from participating, the "world championship" (ha!) in lybia, which AGAIN banned israeli players from playing, leading to a boycott from most of the other top players, etc. so the current list of cities goes well with that. but it's nice that they included baku, showing they support not just anti-semitism but prejudice against armenians too. (i read that aronian has already declined his invitation to that one.) if this still doesn't make sense, try googling some of these places, reading some news, maybe something besides this chess blog... then feel free to make fun of me in a way that actually makes sense.
There is nothing that horrible about any of the countries hosting the Grand Prix. Azerbaijan? Prejudice against Armenians?! Good lord. How about the fact that Armenia is occupying big chunks of their country - somehow less important? Ok, anyway. What countries would be better? Imperialist powers like the USA or Great Britain, directly responsible for more horrible suffering than all the countries you mention put together? Other "civilized" countries like France? Germany? Maybe fine, peaceful, "neutral" countries like Sweden, which is assisting USA in occupying Afghanistan? There is no country that will fulfil any purist's demands of acceptable politics. So very few countries would be unacceptable hosts as far as I am concerned, Israel being one of those very few, but no, I am not interested in debating that further, because something tells me it would not be very fruitful. Btw, Libya did not ban Israelis from participating. In all their official statements they made perfectly clear that everybody was welcome. There was some rumour about someone saying something that could be interpreted otherwise, but I give official statements more weight than rumours. What stopped the Israelis from going was not Libya, but Israeli law.
That's a legitimate reply, and if that's what you had said the first time, I wouldn't have said anything. We all have our own opinions on what countries have caused more suffering and what makes a place inappropriate for hosting a chess tournament, and I also am not interesting in debating that. What annoyed me in your first reply is you missed my point entirely and made it sound like I'm some idiot who complains about having to pronounce names of exotic countries and find them on a map.
If you want to see chess on ESPN, there may still be hope. MLG (Major League Gaming), a U.S.-based league which holds video game tournaments mostly attended by teenagers, has an agreement with ESPN for this coming year. Average Joe most definitely identifies with a Battle Rifle more closely than a Bishop, but the point is you don't necessarily need a massive prize fund or huge fanbase to get a spot on TV.
Cynical, I'm not necessarily contradicting your point...but I once happened to visit some multi-game video gaming tournament or tour site, and was stunned to see prize funds that rivaled professional tennis events. So, it could be that MLG does in fact have a massive prize fund (and a huge fan base)...or not. And obviously, the fact that a competition is "mostly attended by teenagers" doesn't make it any less lucrative; aren't most snowboarding pros teenagers?
"Btw, Libya did not ban Israelis from participating. In all their official statements they made perfectly clear that everybody was welcome. There was some rumour about someone saying something that could be interpreted otherwise, but I give official statements more weight than rumours."
Don't know, acirce. Chessbase (link at end) followed this story and gave links (which no longer work but they did originally as I read them then), and it seems the final word was "Mohammed Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader, denied on Wednesday he had invited Israeli chess players to take part in an international competition to be held this summer in Tripoli. According to Gaddafi, “We didn’t invite nor will we invite the Zionist enemy to the competition”."
Later we have "We know the Zionists will seize such occasions to enter the Arab society ... but we will not give up our principles even if that leads to canceling [sic] holding the tournament in Libya."
These items were printed on May 6, 04 well after the April 27, 04 press release welcoming everyone. Perhaps you can post a link showing that these latter statements were just, as you said, "some rumour about someone saying something that could be interpreted otherwise"? My memory may be faulty and I've forgotten if Gaddafi retracted or denied he'd every said any of the above.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1630
*ever said*, not "every said" in last sentence.
Jon,
I follow MLG (www.mlgpro.com) somewhat, so I have an idea about prize fund sizes and who their sponsors are. They have a regular circuit comprised of about 5 or 6 events running from April to October. Halo is the main game and has the highest prize funds, but other xbox games such Gears of War, Rainbow Six, Shadowrun, etc. are also played. Last year, a typical tournament payed the winning team of four (Halo) about $20,000 total ($5000 each). Second prize is somewhere in the range of $8000 or $10000 total, and the others considerably less. However, the also have an annual national championship, the last tournament of the year, where the winners take $100,000 ($25,000 each). On top of that, they actually have about 10 to 20 pros (not sure exactly), regarded as the best Halo players in the world, on contract. These contracts apparently pay a total of $200,000 per person over three years. So, between contract and prize money, the very best few players probably exceed $100,000 in a good year. Nothing to sneeze at, but I'm certain this is nowhere near (yet) what the top tennis and golf pros make.
Their fan base is of course mostly kids who are good at Halo, many of them aspiring pros. There might be a couple hundred fans at most attending a given tournament, not much compared to golf or tennis.
Last year they were sponsored mainly by Boost Mobile and also Red Bull - companies who want to appeal to kids (cell phones and energy drinks). I'm not sure of the financial details of the sponsorships.
Funny thing is, at least in comparison to chess, MLG was pretty much nothing about 6 or 7 years ago - tiny tournaments attended by tens of players, not several hundred like now. They've grown steadily every year with no signs of slowing down.
Another thing - their web coverage is first rate and highly reliable - tournament games, including commentary, are streamed live from their website. The majority of games from past tournaments are archived and can be viewed free of charge from the website.
@ Daneil J Andrews
Your memory is indeed very faulty:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1634
Thank you, rasi! Now I know better. That FIDE announcement doesn't even ring a bell so I either completely missed it, or my memory is worse than I thought. These things happen when you close in on 80, or so I'm told (I may 'misremember' that too ;->)
Hardly the point, though, is it? If you were Israeli, would you go and play in Libya?
Let us see if Aronian goes to Baku to play in the 1st Grand Prix.
Not a chance, rdh.
We are going to have 6 round robin tournaments and the winner of those will play the winner of the KO and that’s it??? That’s the qualifier?? This is just another attempt to kill off having a meaningful WC.
Ok so there are 21 players. What if Kramnik gets to play 2 of his four tournaments with Anand and two without? Lets say that the 2 without he has an average opponent rating of 2600 and Anand for his two tournaments without Kramnik has an average opponent rating of 2700. Anand needs to score better in those tournaments than Kramnik does against weaker competition??
If he doesn't well then I guess he can give the KO a shot! And who will be appointed to these tournaments and how will that be looked at?
Lets say that its the last rounds of the six tournaments. Moro definitely did not win the grand prix going into one of the last games against Kramnik. If kramnik wins he edges out Anand and qualifies to beat the WC winner and play the champ. If he loses Anand goes on. Will there be concerns? Yes there will!
Not that I think that Kramnik or Moro would cheat. The same might be said of Sasikran and Anand. But Topalov and Ponomariov? The thing is WHEN YOU SET UP A SYSTEM YOU SET IT UP TO AVOID PROBLEMS LIKE THIS!
Sorry guys this sucks eggs. Yep I'm frustrated.
Why why why is it so hard to just have candidates matches? I know the answer. Its not hard but that will give a real strong and well respected WC and Kirsan doesn't want that.
Inky is right. By not having a meaningful WC Chess takes a big hit. Saying we will have all these tournaments is nice. But we already have a bunch of tournaments. These will just dilute the importance of linares/chorus/dortmund/sophia.
Its fine to have a grand prix winner placed into the candidates matches with 8 or more others but this is ridiculous.