Underdogs Bite in Baku

My bet is that the mighty Magnus Carlsen will be no. 1 on the April 2009 list.

Carlsen has picked up over 70 Elo points in the past year and 120 in two years. He's already passed Topalov on the "live list" (http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~ha/toplist.php) and moved into fourth. After his win today, he's extremely close to Morozevich for third. He's only 25-30 points behind Anand. April 2010 may be too pessimistic. We can certainly expect some downs, but could those downs be performances like Baku where he played flat at times and "only" tied for first?

My main reason for going long is that you almost never see players this young (at any level) avoid the occasional poor result. As aggressive as he is, I'd put even money on Carlsen having a negative score in 2009, for example. If his trajectory is similar to that of Ponomariov and Leko (if a year or two ahead of them relative to age and also in closeness to #1 since there's no more Kasparov with a 2850) it wouldn't be a shock to see him rated about the same a year from now. Not that he's not superhuman, of course. But 17, yeesh! It's also very hard to keep adding points once you make the top five. You can go +2 and lose points.

It's good news that it looks like Carlsen's going to have plenty of competition even as the Anand generation grays. Kramnik should have another five good years in him, ten if he works hard.
And the number of strong sub-25 players now is remarkable.

Kramnik working hard? Nah, I don't buy it. I think in 10 years he will be writing books and losing presidential elections.

I predict Carllsen will be #1 in January 2010 list. It may be a little on the conservative side, but often these top prodigies have periods when they kinda plateau. Carlsen might just have one between now and 2010.

I'd just bet Carlsen will be no 1 before he turns 20.

The most interesting thing to bet for me is whether he will make the world record youngest age at no. 1.

We can certainly expect some downs, but could those downs be performances like Baku where he played flat at times and "only" tied for first?

-- Posted by: Dan Dalthorp at May 5, 2008 12:34

That Carlsen is just freaking unbelievable.

His "off" tournament is a tie for first with a +3 score and 2801(!) TPR!

Damn, Carlsen is scary.

One of these tournaments Carlsen is going to be firing on all cylinders and run up a gigantic, Kasparovian score of like +6,+7,+10.

Kasparov at Tilburg 1989: +10 =4 -0. WOW!!!!!!

@MIG: OFF-TOPIC

Speaking of Kasparov, World #1, and elo, do you know how many elo rating points Kasparov gained at Corus '99 (+8 =4 -1) and Linares '99 (+7 =7 -0)?

Thanks.

Carlsen will be #1 on the Jan 2009 list.

Jul 2012.

Carlsen will be #1 within 2008.

As I mentioned in some other threads, the thing about the Chinese is that until very recently they don't get as many chances playing top players, compared with europeans.

When they do get the chance, they seem to be able to hold on.

Check out the results from the Russian team championships. The Chinese were doing pretty well.
Ni Hua 4-1=6, wins against Inarkiev and Timofeev.
Wang Hao 5-0=6, win against Grischuk.
Bu Xiangzhi 3-0=7, wins against Zvjaginsev & Karjakin

Also, the invitations has started coming :-). Bu is invited to play in Sofia. And of course, Wang Yue will play in another 3 Grand Prix tournaments.

Never, he is just another Pono.

same as john, never!
he is over-rated as it is
others will pass him by

I think Wang Yue said in his interview that he's not sure if he will play in Dresden Olympiad since only 2700+ players will be allowed for the team. Strange comment considering there are currently only 2 chinese players that meet that requirement. Maybe I misunderstood him.

Carlsen certainly started off 2008 very impressively.

Corus, equal 1st, Ahead of Kramnik-Anand-Topalov, including a win against Kramnik
Linares-Morelia, 2nd, including 2-0 against Topalov
Baku, equal 1st

Not a single minor note. And he's only 17.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even Kasparov did the same thing at the same age, against the same level of opposition. Kasparov's wins at Banja Luka 79 and Baku 80 were impressive because of the scores, but they were not against elite opposition. Kasparov got his first super result at Bugojno 82, when he was 19.

Slavmonster,

What Wang Yue meant to say was that only 2700 players are guaranteed places in the team. Others have to take part in the qualification tournament. I guess the Chinese want to give a chance to additional young players to fight it off against the 2600s.

Jan 2013

Carlsen is indeed very impressive, but his style is different from that of Kasparov. I don't expect him to score something around +6 on a consistent basis just because his opening preparations are not powerful enough. No matter how good you are, you (or rather he) will be able to win from equal position after the opening only against out of form people. That's not gonna produce +6.

The fact that he can outplay strong GMs in a seemingly effortless fashion bodes extremely well for his future. Still his results and style remind more of Kramnik and Anand than of Kasparov.

Osbender,

Perhaps Carlsen won't produce +6 consistently, but he doesn't need that to get to the no. 1 spot. Consistent results similar to what he has shown so far since this year will be enough.

Also, he doesn't need +6 results to become world champion in a match. Remember that Kramnik, the +2 guy, did succeed in beating Kasparov.

BTW, you think his openings are not powerful enough? Perhaps not as powerful as Kasparov's, but remember he is still 17. We don't know how much more he could learn.

Whichever comes first: 1.5/2 against Anand in a DRR or Jan. 2010

"The many special "China vs" matches are the envy of any chess nation, but it's nice to see more mixing. The Chinese players are still largely viewed as aliens and they've tended to hold themselves/be held apart."- Mig

Mig: I can tell you and chess fans news in advance: late this year,they are many special "China vs" matches: 5th China vs Russia matches, Sept. 17-26; China vs Germany matches, Nev. 6-11; China vs Europe matches, Dec.12-22 2008.

I'll be pessimistic and say Jan 2011...But I have a feeling he may have to overtake Aronian to reach the top.

That's the crazy thing, Carlsen didn't even give the impression of playing particularly well in this tournament. He missed a winning tactic against Cheparinov, for example.

Yet he still came in =1st.

July 2010

"I think Wang Yue said in his interview that he's not sure if he will play in Dresden Olympiad since only 2700+ players will be allowed for the team. Strange comment considering there are currently only 2 chinese players that meet that requirement."

According to today's live rating (http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~ha/toplist.php ), there are four Chinese players above 2700.

Mig,

I will say that I like the efforts you have done in this blog for banning the draw offer. In my opinion Baku proved you right.

You have talked about how chess could be more popular for the masses, and I want to give my view. As a totally amataur I barely know how the pieces moves, but due to Rybka I am now a fan. We need the Sofia-rule in all top tournament, and also the Bilbao-rule (3 points for win, 1 for draw). That will give sharper play and thats needed.

But also, since its un-logical to have a draw offer, its also unlogical to have a resignation offer. Whats chess about? Its about putting your opponent check mate. Ask yourself: When was the last time you saw a check mate in Corus or Linares. Maybe Carlsen - Ernst in 2004, a game that are widely known. Why? Because its brilliant, and its a check mate! If you want to make elite chess popular you have to ban the resignation offer! And its not that much work for the players. Once they know they are loosing, they will just blitz out 10 or 20 moves.

Thats my view, and I hope you will promote it, because its important for making elite chess more interesting for amateurs. You can call it the Mig-rule if you like it. :)

I think it will take a while before Carlsen reaches the number one position.
With his higher rating, opponents will be happier about playing for a draw against him. Furthermore, the rise from 2760 to 2800 is extremely difficult, since even draws against 2700-2750 players will cost you points. Even constant 2800 performances won't be high enough to reach #1 in a year and a half or so.

So I go for April 2011.

We can certainly expect some downs, but could those downs be performances like Baku where he played flat at times and "only" tied for first?

-- Posted by: Dan Dalthorp at May 5, 2008 12:34

Baku 2008 is not one of Magnus' downs. In my opinion the tournament reflected his transition from kind underdog to gorilla king on the mountain. Where he humbly accepted his loss to Mamedyarov, he clearly got annoyed for playing to quick against Cheparinov. So then his true nature kicked in. The kid sacked two qualities in his last two all-or-nothing games, just to claim a shot at the title! Achieving in winning both is enough proof of confidence for me.

So excuse me, but I no longer am going to be distracted by his humble nature. Magnus is in for chess history. July 2009!

Mig,

To me the question is not whether Carlsen will reach #1 in any of the lists. That may happen in 2009. But can he stay to be #1 like Kasparov did?

My money is on NO. I do not see him being consistently #1 for at least another 5 - 6 years. He can do that only after Anand, Kramnik and Toplaov have faded from the scene.

SNJ

I have always said that we have the example of Ponomariev and should not be too optimistic because the kid has a high rating.
But that was before Carlsen won Corus, Baku, and generally-he already has a better super-tournament record than Pono (whose highest achievement is probably the clear second after Kasparov in Linares). Carlsen is clearly not Pono or Leko. He will stay.

Hitting No. 1 is hard I though... there is at least one player-Aronian, who is more mature and I think he is a clear contender for the No.1 spot, at least in the years coming. Carlsen's turn will come, but later.

First of all, Anand and Kramnik are still better players IMO and I don't see them caving in in the coming couple of years. And what is going to happen in 5 years is anybody's guess.

Carlsen had a nice stretch recently. His play between Linares 2007 and Wijk 2008 (especially in Dortmund and Tal's memorial) wasn't that hot to be honest. Aronian's stretch is by no means worse. Win in Monaco in front of all the elite IMO counts for more than a second place in this year's Linares.

So at the moment the Carlsen is definitely a member of super elite who has to be considered a contender to win in every event he participates. There is a difference though between a contender to win and a favorite to win. This is the difference between Anand and Kramnik and the guys like Carlsen and Aronian, between a #1 spot and #3-5.

Crossing this line is not going to be easy for Carlsen. Aronian, for example, is in the same spot since his win in Linares, but he wasn't a threat to #1 place yet. I expect the winner of Anand-Kramnik match to pull ahead in the ratings and securely stay at the top spot at least for a year.

October 2008!

Q

"Furthermore, the rise from 2760 to 2800 is extremely difficult..."

It certainly is. Realistically, 2010 or 2011 (if ever) would be the best guess, but, then again, his young career has been entirely unrealistic so far. He made the leap from 2650 to 2700 look easy (4/06 to 4/07); ditto for the leap from 2700 to 2770.

And the extremely difficult leap from 2760 to 2800? He's already narrowed it by a third after hitting 2773 on "live list". Three more touneys like Baku and he's at 2800. If he smooths out some of the Baku bumps, it'll only take two. Those are some might big "if's", but far from impossible.

Magnus will surpass Anand to take the #1 spot on the January 2008 list

I'm going to go with October 2010. I do not expect that he will keep it very long, but he's probably a Topalov level talent, so there isn't any reason to believe he won't scratch Anand for a few months (as Topalov did).

Still, it seems unlikely that his career will be as successful as Kasparov's, Karpov's, or Anand's.

Fix this site already!!

Those ratings are only statistical values, not really the best and only measure of one's strength.

I think he's not like many players who can't put up good fight against top seeds and already he's averaging on 2800 performance on best tournaments, so it doesn't sound very far fetched to assume he's level could be around 2800-2850 next year, perhaps July 2009.

doh, my bad... I meant January 2013!

It is true, maintaining 2800 will not easy, if Carlsen gets there. However, assuming he keeps his recent level of play, it should be possible. He does not need to get a Kasparovian +6. Consistently getting a nice +3 like in Baku does the job. After all, Kramnik and Anand don't produce +6 wins either to keep their spots up there.

At around 2800, drawing against somebody who has a high 2600s will lose about 1.5 points. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect Carlsen to win about 3 games out of 10 against that level of opposition. That's what he's been doing recently. And that's enough to stabilize a rating around 2800.

It also depends on who else is around. When Kasparov was there, a +6 score is necessary to match his rating. But that's not necessary nowadays.

It is premature to say whether his lifetime career is likely or unlikely to match Kasparov's or Karpvo's or Anand's. We have basically zero data to make such predictions. What we can say now is that his results at 17 years are at their level. In fact perhaps better, even compared to Kasparov in a sense, at the same age.

gmc wrote:
I'm going to go with October 2010. I do not expect that he will keep it very long, but he's probably a Topalov level talent, so there isn't any reason to believe he won't scratch Anand for a few months (as Topalov did).
---

This doesn't make any sense. Either you believe that he is far more than a 'Topalov level talent', or you believe there is no chance he will be #1 in the next few years. Or are you saying you expect him to start cheating?

mig,

while i've been a declared carlsen fan for years (going back to 2001, actually) and some people (peculiarly) see me as an unrealistic carlsen hyper, i'm not too much in favour of the kind of "guessing competitions" like the one you suggested in today's daily dirt.

a few months ago, some carlsen fan suggested the exact same exercise/competition on the magnus carlsen page on chessgames.com (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=52948). my reaction then - and now - was/is to strongly discourage the whole undertaking. while i see the potential entertainment in such thought experiments (and informal "competitions"), i mostly find it futile and something that can only be harmful to carlsen (and his fans). i honestly think the reasons behind such a view should be quite self-evident, but i'll give a short explanation to make my reasoning entirely clear.

carlsen's progress and career so far has been exceptional, and just even more so, if one considers when he started to play chess (8,5 years old) and where in the chess world he started out (norway - where the strongest chess player until then had spent more time obtaining a place on the national soccer team than working on his chess). but while carlsen initially had the odds against him for becoming a world star chess player, it now seems that most prerequisites are in place - very few things should know be able to stop carlsen from reaching his full potential as a chess player (whatever that may be, i might add)...

to make a short list:
* he experiences a lot of "goodwill" from "everyone that matters"
* he can mostly play the tournaments he wants to
* he's got a good sponsor deal (at the moment)
* also tournament winnings have been very good
* economically he therefore should be able to afford whatever training desirable
* his (relatively) strongest points (imo) are those hardest to improve by training: intuition/understanding and fighting spirit
* his (relatively) weakest points (imo) are quite possible to improve on: opening repertoir and calculation capabilities (the latter overestimated by many, i think)

however, one thing might still become a real problem for carlsen: unrealistic and/or futile expectations. and it doesn't matter where these expectations originate, whether it's from

* the chess public
* the carlsen fans, or
* carlsen himself

these expectations will tend to be somewhat related, though, in my opinion. the way i see it, carlsen has oodles of time: becoming world champion at an earlier time than what kasparov did, is not important. becoming world number one (sometime), is not important. being stronger (=higher rated) than karjakin/aronian (or contender x), is not very important (anymore).

the important thing is to keep the joy related to chess (playing, studying, learning, etc.) and to improve as a chess player.

if the chess public - where you, mig, are one of the voices having an influence - at some point become disappointed with carlsen, for instance because he's "only rated number 8 (or 10) at his 18th birthday", or because he drops 40-50 points from his current level, so that he "only is rated 2720" within 10-12 months from now - approximately the rating of karjakin at the moment (2723,8 according to the live list, after baku), and way higher than aronian or anand at similar age.

of course, i too would be surprised if carlsen now drops to 2720 anytime soon, but if he would plateu around 2750 +/- 10 points for a while, it would be perfectly natural and nothing sensational at all. if somebody starts to see such a natural development as some kind of disappointment, something is wrong, imho. because the really sensational thing, is his current (official) 5th place in the world rankings, obtained at the age of 17 years and 3 months (becoming official one month later, april 1st 2008).

carlsen "deserves" to be treated as carlsen - he's a phenomenon in his own right, imo. where he'll place in the grand records of chess history, is something we should care about later. contributions to futile expectations, taking the focus away from the important issues (chess skills and chess development and chess joy!) is something i find more than a bit "scary". admittedly, carlsen still seems to be in position to "break more records", placing him among the likes of kasparov and fischer at comparable stages of their careers, but the less focus there will be on such issues, the better it would be - for carlsen.

in conclusion: my humble wish is that most people within the chess world remain "happy" with the accomplishments we've seen so far from carlsen, without putting up "hopeless goals" and becoming equally disappointed with him, if he shouldn't be able to reach those goals. i think carlsen promises to entertain the chess public for years to come, and the only threat i can see to this "prophecy" is unrealistic and futile expectations forcefully put upon carlsen's young shoulders.

please consider :o)

forgbert,

I think you are taking these predictions too seriously :-). Even those joining these discussions and making predictions are probably not taking them that seriously.

Man, frogbert. While Nakamura must be the most annoying kibitzer EVER, you clearly take the top spot for the most annoying poster EVER!

GoatsHeadSoup,

i'm flabbergasted and in awe by the strong points you put forward. such stringent and coherent logic is hard to dispute, so i think i'll just pass. :o)

henry,

i don't at all mind people posting their predictions, and i don't take them very seriously either. :o)

the only thing i'm afraid of, is the kind of build-up and tear-down "journalism" that "stars" in every field are subjected to. luckily, the chess scene isn't anywhere near the pop music and movie star business in this respect, but the phenomenon is still present within our "ranks", and i think players like ponomariov and bacrot might have experienced some of its downsides...

I predict Magnus will be #1 on the April 2009 list.

And he's already only 2.2 points from being #3, according to the live list.

frogbert,

I don't think these predictions had any significant effect to Ponomariov, and neither will they on Carlsen. On the other hand, they are fun to make :-).

Carlsens live rating is 2773 good enough for 4th spot.

The thing is he hasn't even matured. He is just like any regular teenage school boy that would rather be a soccer star than mundane chess player. He may seem like a kid but he is more professinal and has a more likeable attitude than many egotistical chess players in his interviews.

He may already be the strongest chess player on the planet given his success is more akin to a young sky walker in starwars with a high mita chlorine count.
The bottom line is we need a Carlsen. He is the Bobby Fischer that won't go haywire. The future champion that won't be full of himself. The chess player who is all rounded in sports. His chess career is a better story than all the other chess stories we have heard so far.

It is people like Carlsen that attract corporate sponsors. Not the sore losers that sulk and make up excuses. Or this is maybe because Carlsen almost never loses.

I don't see Carlsen in #1 spot as long as Anand and Kramnik are in scene. He can pass Topa and Moroz easily and even have the second place from time to time, but I think at least one of Anand-Kramnik team will occupy top of the list for a good 5 years from now.
The same can apply to Aronian also, depending on how much love for chess is left in his heart.

Magnus can claim the top spot not earlier than 2013.

i predict Carlsen will be number 1 in the list by the end of the year. go Carlsen!

My guess: Carlsen will be number one in one year from now.

This guessing competition is of no harm whatsoever. Carlsen is a superstar by now, and he has to live with this kind of attention. Maybe it creates unrealistic expectations, but I doubt it. Carlsen himself is the one who creates expectations -- by his fantastic results.

bureaucrat,

i'm "afraid" of the "build up and tear down phenomenon", not for this particular "guessing competition", like i explained to henry above. in that respect, i'm not completely convinced that your view about its complete harmlessness is correct. hopefully we'll never know. :o)

ps! 17 year old superstars have more than once found the expectations hard to live with - and being 17 seems to be more relevant than being a superstar...

Being #1 is a tremendous accomplishment. Asking publicly a question I'm sure Carlsen has wondered about himself is unlikely to disturb him or anyone else! Young stars are inevitably asked "when do you think you will be world champion?" Such questions and these harmless prognostication games are part of life for any up and comer. After all, what do we talk about if not the future? We guess the winners of tournaments and we argue about the results of matches that haven't even been sponsored yet. Beats rehashing "Would Capablanca have beaten Alekhine in a rematch?" and the endless other unreal scenarios we like to play with.

Now, had I asked, "in which year will world champion Carlsen be checked into rehab after being caught with hookers and blow?" that would have been a little over the top.

"It is people like Carlsen that attract corporate sponsors. Not the sore losers that sulk and make up excuses. Or this is maybe because Carlsen almost never loses."

It's people like Fischer that attract corporate sponsors. Advertising money has never been attached to virtue and modesty. Competition is about conquering, and two of the greatest conquerors in chess, Fischer and Kasparov, attracted the most money. They were not nice guys. Lots of scowling and excuses from both when they lost.

To address the point about pressure---we didn't create that expectation on this chess blog. Carlsen's prodigious rise created that naturally. Predictions follow automatically from expectations, which arise the minute a prodigy in any field is detected. Chess blog musings don't add anything to the pressure. The pressure was already there.

"Now, had I asked, "in which year will world champion Carlsen be checked into rehab after being caught with hookers and blow?" that would have been a little over the top."

Chess would be lucky to have scandals like that.

mig,

of course i never implied there being anything indecent about your poll. :o) thanks for your reply - i hope you're right that it doesn't add to the pressure (already there, of course).

equally, i hope most people will remain realistic in the sense that the occasional bad result or some rating loss will be considered more natural and logical than strange or disappointing.

anyway, the chess scene is very much alive - and now i'm looking forward to the big clashes at mtel. will topalov and/or aronian climb closer to and possibly overtake carlsen in the live ratings again? or will the small gap become a bigger gap?

whatever it will be, http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~ha/toplist.php will keep you up to date. :o)

In my opinion, the main factors that bring sponsors are neither nice or bad behavior. Fischer and Kasparov brought sponsors because of their undeniably fantastic results plus the fact that they keep insisting people to pay more to see more of those results.

In addition there are external factors, such as nationalism. Like Bulgarians sponsoring Topalov, Americans supporting Fischer against the Soviets, etc.

go David Archuleta!!

Lots of players have had fantastic results over the years, and none of them have brought the sponsorships Fischer and Kasparov did. It takes an extraordinary personality combined with superb results to generate major attention.

Fischer created a very marketable personality with his defiance and allegations of Soviet cheating. Nationalism by itself doesn't sell much. Insisting on money doesn't lure match backers either. You can insist all you want; if you aren't compelling in the public eye, you won't sell anything.

Chess has a very steep uphill battle in this regard because the public doesn't relate to it the way they do physical sports. Fischer and Kasparov created the illusion that chess is essentially marketable. It's not. It needs extraordinary saviors to run with the torch, and they don't come around too often. And when they do, they don't come with a moral sermon. They are committed to the violent crushing of egos.

Magnus will be popular, but only in the limited chess community sense. Kasparov and Fischer were sensational public personalities, like Muhammad Ali was. They transcended their sport. Nice guys can do that in a popular sport, from time to time. Chess does not have that luxury because it's a dungeon activity. It's very small-time without fiery luminaries like Bobby and Garry.

"I hereby open the betting pool for which FIDE rating list will be the first to have Magnus Carlsen as #1."

All in! Carlsen has since Jan 2008 list, been the world #1 junior. :)

He has already been rated at 2700 level 4 times, so by extrapolating

2000 3
2100 2
2200 3
2300 2
2400 2
2500 7
2600 6
2700 4

it's easy for those interested to calculate, when he cross 3000! ;)

Give the kid a break.. let him finish school and go professional first.

Chris said:

"Lots of players have had fantastic results over the years"

LOTS of players? Like who?
When I said fantastic results I'm not talking about just tournament wins, but spectacular results that even NON chessplayers could understand as being spectacular. Results that are newsworthy enough to be published in widely read
newspapers. How many players won the US championship by winning all games?
How many players had 6-0 and 6-0 results in candidates? How many players regularly crushed all the best?

Notice that before the 1970 cycle, Fischer did not have a real big sponsor. When he quit 1967 cycle, nobody pushed really hard to get him back. He already had the personality back then, in fact that's why he quit in 1967, but nobody came out to save him. Why? Only in the 1970 cycle, when he showed the once in history results and actually broke through to become a challenger, plus the fact the he defeated the Soviets and had a real chance to defeat the Soviet world champion, did he have public support and sponsorship.

Just defiance towards the Soviets is not enough if one does not actually show concrete spectacular results to show that one could actually fight the Soviets.

As I also mentioned, external factors played as well. For example the fact that in the middle of the cold war Fischer was up against a representative of the Soviet system. Another example: the older Soviet champions couldn't ask for better sponsorship because it was just not part of the system they played under. Besides, most of them did not have the newsworthy results of Fischer or Kasparov to begin with.

Frogbert,

Kudos for your work on the live list btw.

I know where you are coming from. As a sometimes obsessive sports fan, I have seen it happen many times in many sports.

I would say though, first, that Magnus would seem to have the kind of personality that is relatively impervious to this problem. You see it in his play and in his commentary after the games. He seems especially strong at evaluating a position without imposing a wish for it to be one way or the other. In the same way he seems quite realistic about the strength of his play. He is certainly not jumping on his own bandwagon right now.

Second, chess is such a nothing sport for the general population that I doubt the "star effect" would be strong enough to affect him so much anyway. And a poll on a chess website is really quite insignificant, is it not?

I myself have not the slightest clue when he will become number one, but I think there is a very good chance he will have a WCC match in 2010 after winning this Grand Prix series. And I think that will be an absolutely fascinating affair, a 19 year old Carlsen against Kramnik or Anand!

It is one of the joys in life to wonder at such possibilities ahead of us.

PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE KARPOV AND ESPECIALLY KASPAROVS' CAREER WITH ANAND, ANAND IS NOT IN THERE LEAGUE, HE IS NOT EVEN IN KRAMNIKS'. cARLSON HAS DONE MORE BY 18 THAN ANAND DID BY 30. DO NOT COMPARE A GENIUS TO A SIMPLE PRODIGY YOU MOROONS.

"LOTS of players? Like who?"

Every world champion in history. In the modern era, Karpov and Kramnik in particular have had amazing records. Of course anyone in the 2800+ club, including Topalov goes in this category as well. Or is 2800 ELO not amazing?

"When I said fantastic results I'm not talking about just tournament wins, but spectacular results that even NON chessplayers could understand as being spectacular."

Karpov's tournament record is probably the best in history. Kramnik went I think 80 or 90 games without a loss at one point. You can boil their careers down to numbers that anyone will understand as spectacular, but it won't matter, because they are not spectacular as people. They have dull images. They cannot draw sponsors because they fail to transcend chess. Yes, it's a tall order. In the modern era only Bobby and Garry have done it.

As far as spectacular records go, it wouldn't have mattered if Bobby won the candidates matches by some score other than 6-0. Those stellar results helped burn his fire a little hotter, sure, but that's about it. The fire was already hot because he was on the champion's path.

It was Bobby's image that helped sell chess, and thus draw sponsors, once his record became noteworthy. And a big part of that image was not merely his struggle against the Soviet machine, but the fact that he was doing it *alone.* A very compelling image.

I think the external factors as you mention are quite relevant. I don't deny their importance, nor that of a great record. Your points are well taken in that regard. But these things need to be combined with an extraordinary personality to draw serious sponsorship.

The relevant factors, in order, IMO are: 1)Image 2)External factors 3)Record. You need all three to draw big purses in chess. But record is the least important of the factors.

To draw mega-sponsorship, a player needs to transcend the sport of chess. His image needs to be accessible to everyone. A very tall, almost impossible, order.

Agree with several posts, where Carlsen would not make no. 1 until Anand and Kramnik retire like GK or fade (due to age) like VK. Anand and Kramnik don't self destruct like the other regular top 5 visitors, e.g. Chucky, Moro, etc.

Although I would love the see Chucky top the chart in the transition period.

Carlsen Apr 2011!

Don't count Aronian out. He has won 3 category 20 tournaments in last years, while, say, Ivanchuk's lifetime best is a category 18 win (I got these figures from MTel site). He is quite capable to fight for No. 1. If he plays well in MTel, he can become No.4 or even 3 in the next list.

mungono,

i'm not really afraid that carlsen will "jump on his own bandwagon" due to the occasional "hype" or grand predictions. however, if there at sometime would spread a general feeling (and expression) of disappointment with carlsen in the chess community, then _that_ might have a negative effect on his psyche and his chess. it's the "tear down" that i fear, not back-to-back successes. :o)

According to MTel site, Chucky's lifetime best is a category 18 tournament win. For a comparison, Aronian has won 3 category 20 events.

I guess Chucky's wins in Linares 1991 (cat17) and in Belgrade 1997 (cat18) would be really close to category 20 nowadays due to ELO inflation.

I have another question: Who will be the first non-bulgarian winner in the Bulgarian MTel Masters?

Perhaps Aronian this year? Who else?

I think Aronian is the clear favorite at MTel and is probably a more likely world #1 (at some point) than Carlsen. That said, I think Anand could probably pad his rating a bit if he wanted by playing a little bit more and "drawing out" a little less blatantly with tournament leads.

Again, though, match prowess and rating strength are not the same thing; I would expect an aggressive player like Carlsen to have trouble transitioning to matches (as Anand did), despite his strength. Carlsen will hit world #1 long before he is capable of winning a match against Kramnik or Anand.

Chris, this is getting interesting.

Yes, world champions produce fantastic and newsworthy results, if only because of the title. However, there are not that "many" of them :-), and I think each case can be explained by the factors that I already mentioned.

The earliest world champions were active when sponsorship in most except a few sports were negligible. External factors explain why they didn't get sponsorship.

The Soviet world champions, up to Karpov, were strictly playing under the Soviet system which didn't recognize private sponsorship. They couldn't get the money even if they had the greatest personalities and results. Again, external factors explain the lack of (private) sponsorship.

In the case of Fischer, as I have mentioned, he didn't get big time sponsorship before 1970, though the personality, single fighter defiance and all that jazz were already there before 1970. When he quit (temporarily) in 1967, nobody bothered that much. It was only after he showed very realistic chances (based on concrete fantastic results) towards beating the Soviet world champion that the big sponsorship kicked in. Even Nixon and Kissinger paid attention and gave support, and I bet you they were thinking about the cold war instead of Fischer's personality.

First, you need the results. Any kind of strong personality won't get support without the results.

Karpov had amazing record, but the period of his world championship tenure was under the Soviet system. This external factor explains the lack of (private) sponsorship for him during his reign.

As for Kasparov, he not only produced amazing winning streaks on a regular basis, but also was directly involved in organizing things. That's what I meant by "insisting people to pay". Not only that he asked to be paid, but he jumped into the organizing process himself. It's not just personality, but he did his work directly towards that goal. Plus he was creative enough to find newsworthy and sponsor-worthy options, such as creating various events involving the computer - which involved external factors as well, as he was lucky to be champion exactly when computers were getting strong enough to play against the champion.

Notice that even Kasparov failed many efforts to arrange sponsorship for a match after 1995, and completey failed for the return match after 2000. Why did he fail? I strongly guess that one factor is precisely his personality. The personality thing could actually be a negative thing.

Kramnik does produce fantastic results, minus the personality. And didn't he manage to get sponsorship for his WC matches and against the computer? This seems to be a counterexample to your statement.

Anand and Topalov, without the Fischer-type personality, are enjoying strong support and sponsorhip from their countries. These are the cases I had in mind when I mentioned nationalism, of course based on the fact that they produced amazing results unique in the history of those countries that ignite national pride.

I think personality does burn the fire a little hotter, but first of all there must be concrete, amazing and newsworthy results. Just the fact of working alone doesn't mean much if one doesn't actually win at the highest level. Nakamura works alone, but he doesn't get that much support, because his results, although good, are not nearly that spectacular seen from the highest standards. If he gets spectacular wins at the highest level, then the general public might pay attention, and mention the fact that he works alone. Not the other way round.

playjunior,

You cannot compare categories of tournaments from different periods, based on FIDE ratings, because of the rating inflation.

You might want to use something like the Sonas rating, which doesn't have this problem, to determine the category.

Another way that I often use (besides the Sonas rating) is simply to compare the average rating of a tournament against the rating list at the time of the event, and see where the average rating stands on that list.

For example, when Ivanchuk won Linares 1991, his opposition has average rating that falls within the range of top 10 ratings in 1991. When Aronian won Corus 2008, he was also facing opposition whose average rating falls within top 10 of 2008. So they were facing more or less the same level of opposition, based on the rank of their opposition, not just the nominal number of their ratings.

Zakki: Topalov went on a hot streak and was #1 on the rating list briefly, preventing Anand from being #1 directly after Kasparov left teh list due to inactivity. I expect Carlsen to do the same, and then settle down a bit, as Topalov has.

{
"It's people like Fischer that attract corporate sponsors. Advertising money has never been attached to virtue and modesty."
}

Fischer made himself into the best player.

The Cold War made Fischer a house-hold name.

Carlsen needs to marry a famous movie star, and then negotiate for a WCChamp sponsorship purse.

Paris Carlsen has a nice ring to it.

This calls for an entry-level sports marketing seminar. Where are Jamie Duif's 5,000-word posts when you need them?

I'll be a contrarian here. I don't think that it is inevitable that Carlsen will reach #1--or become World Champion. He is the most likely candidate to succeed Anand/Kramnik, but there is so much talent in the pipeline. If Anand manages to hold off Carlsen for 2 or 3 years, there could be a new phenom to break out, who is even stronger than Magnus. While the odds are not bad that he'll achieve the Top ranking based on rating, I think that it is somewhat under 50%.

While there is no evidence that Carlsen has begun to peak, sooner or later every player will (if they have a normal career). And it is no simple thing to crack the 2800 barrier, and just keep going.

We are in another period when lots of young talents are storming towards the peak of chess olympus.

Carlsen might be doing it faster and at a younger age, but others like Karjakin and Radjabov will probably reach the same level soon enough. Eventually it doesn't matter who does it fastest. More important is who stabilizes and stays there longer.

In the top 100 there are about 30 players who are 25 or under. Very exciting. This doesn't happen too often.

Reminds me of the period around 1990 when Anand, Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Shirov, Bareev came out, followed shortly by Kramnik, Kamsky, Topalov and Adams. They took over the top almost completely, but only "almost" because the 2 Ks.

I agree henry with your remark about relative strength.
What I wanted to do was to underline that there are players now that are incredibly strong, but we forget that sometimes. Ivanchuk has surely participated in more cat. 19 and 20 events than Aronian, well, he didn't win them. These new guys-Aronian, Carlsen, and Radjabov, are incredibly strong. Karjakin is my favourite but he has to win something like Corus to be on that line.

How long will it be before Hou Yifan overtakes Magnus ? How long before she becomes no:1 on the Open list?
If we compare careers, she's doing slightly better than Carlsen at the same age. She's marketable if only because of gender and the guaranteed 1.2 billion fanbase.
I'm sure the big invitations will start to come along and she should be qualifying for Corus A by say, 2010.

playjunior,

Ivanchuk did win tournaments at the level of present day category 20 tournaments.

Ivanchuk's peak was early 1990s, when he was competing with Karpov for the no. 2 spot. During that period, he won tournaments comparable to current category 20. They are not officially category 20, but if you compensate for the rating inflation, they become comparable tot present day category 20.

More recently (after 2000), Ivanchuk did participate in category 20 tournaments. But unfortunately he is not at his best anymore.

What I was comparing was Ivanchuk from the early 1990s and Aronian nowadays. The tournaments they won in their respective periods are comparable, although the official categories differ due to rating inflation.

gmc:
I see. So because he is a 'Topalov level talent', it also follows that he will go on a Topalove like spree (which btw, was probably computer aided), 13-14 years younger than when Topalov had his spree? Yes, that adds up.

Btw, Topalov has to score +3 in MTel to keep Carlsen behind him on the next rating list.

Why do people keep putting Aronian and Carlsen in the same bag? Aronian is closer in age to Kramnik and Topalov than to Carlsen. Just because he emerged 'late' doesn't make him any younger than he is.

October 2012.

Clubfoot,

Heh. I respect the intelligence of the chess community too much to simply repeat the same discussion.

Besides, at this point a sports marketing basics discussion requires only 4 letters:
L P G A. ;)

--Duif

http://www.lpga.com/player_stats.aspx

"The Soviet world champions, up to Karpov, were strictly playing under the Soviet system which didn't recognize private sponsorship. They couldn't get the money even if they had the greatest personalities and results. Again, external factors explain the lack of (private) sponsorship."

The sponsorship doesn't have to be private. Of course the Soviet system would rule out private sponsorship. In chess the more common form of sponsorship attaches to the governing body, or whatever acts to supply the venue, not the person. But the person causes the interest to begin with.

Intel, IBM, etc. have invested money when they thought chess would be marketable. They thought it would be marketable because of Gary Kasparov. And yes, the amazing record is a big factor. It's just not the only one, and I don't even think it's the most important one.

If your rule were as invariable as you claim, all athletes would only be precisely as popular as their sporting records. Look at the boxer Floyd Mayweather. Nobody except diehard boxing fans cared about this guy until he beat Oscar De La Hoya, who was already past his prime when Floyd beat him. Oscar is a great boxer, and definitely his record plays a big part in his popularity, but his image is what takes it all to another level. That is what the public falls in love with, and this happens in every sport, including chess. It's just rarer in chess because the game requires intellectual comprehension. This is what sets the bar so high. For any player to really transcend the sport, they need a powerful image.

Do you think Pete Sampras was ever as popular as Andre Agassi as a tennis player? Nope. Pete might be the best player ever but Agassi earned more sponsorship for himself based on his "rebel" image (his corny mullet back in the early 90's qualified as rebellion). As great as it is, Andre's record doesn't compare to Pete's. Andre got a lot more attention. Pete was Mr. boring, just like 99% of chess players are (in the public eye at least).

Of course, in *popular* professional sports (which chess is not), sponsorship attaches directly to the person, in addition to the venue. In chess it has just mainly attached to the venue, such as the Brain Games world championship match between Kasparov and Kramnik (although Kasparov has enjoyed at least some product advertising, in the same way that NBA players do for instance).

"In the case of Fischer, as I have mentioned, he didn't get big time sponsorship before 1970, though the personality, single fighter defiance and all that jazz were already there before 1970. When he quit (temporarily) in 1967, nobody bothered that much. It was only after he showed very realistic chances (based on concrete fantastic results) towards beating the Soviet world champion that the big sponsorship kicked in. Even Nixon and Kissinger paid attention and gave support, and I bet you they were thinking about the cold war instead of Fischer's personality."

Certainly. But why did Bobby remain popular after the cold war had ended? Do you think if Larry Evans had achieved the same record, and went through the candidates and won the world championship instead of Bobby, that chess would have been popularized to the same degree? I would conjecture NO. Bobby and the external factors were a match for one another IMO, and Fischer's personality played a huge role.

Image and personality also take time to germinate. It's not always like a light switch, with instant effect.

I understand the part of your argument which questions where Fischer's popularity and sponsorship ability was before 1970. I will say that a great record does indeed bring the player into the spotlight. On this we agree. I maintain however that what happens *after that* is the more important factor, and this would be the image of the player, of which personality is a part.

This I should have stressed from the beginning. *Image* is really a more appropriate word, because it entails more than personality. What a person looks like, the kinds of statements he makes, etc go into this. They can enhance or reduce popularity.

Image, once attached to a good sporting record, will determine how far the popularity goes. The kind of popularity that interests me is the kind which transcends the given sport. Shag is a household name, around the world. De La Hoya, David Beckham. Garry Kasparov: fiery Russian genius. Bobby Fischer: ego crusher, defiant paranoid.

All of these things matter. External circumstances are not just generally shaped for the insertion of any player with an amazing record in order to foster sport transcendence. Image matters a great deal, and some images are more compelling than others.

"First, you need the results. Any kind of strong personality won't get support without the results."

Yes, but what qualifies as properly spectacular "results" is arguable. Anna Kournikova never won any majors in tennis, and her singles record merely established her as a very good pro. Yet she was the most popular player in the world for a while. It's not hard to understand why. Image, image, image.

Certainly there are many borderline pros as attractive as she is. But evidently they don't get the attention because their records aren't very good. But Anna's were hardly spectacular.

So, precisely what results are necessary to enable sport transcendence? It's very arguable. That said, I think in chess it matters more than in something like tennis. But it is still arguable.

I distinguish state sponsorship because in that case strong personality does not seem to have a significant role. The Soviets supported whoever is the champion, in fact every Grandmaster was supported, even every young promising player was supported. There is no case for the role of personality here. In fact, some of those with strong personality got in trouble with their sponsorship (Korchnoi, Bronstein).

You can call Soviet state support sponsorhip, but in any case it doesn't support your claim on the correlation between sponsorship and personality, because they support *every* strong player.

I think Intel and IBM sponsored certain Kasparov events because of 2 factors: his spectacular records and, also very important in my opinion, the external fact that computers happen to reach the time when they can challenge the champions, thus making it the precisely right time to promote computer chess events, indirectly promoting their own products.

Notice that Kramnik and Adams also got good sponsorship for their matches against computers. How do you explain those cases?

In fact Kramnik played a match against Fritz for even bigger money than Kasparov vs Deep Junior. How do you explain that? But my explanation is easy: Kramnik's results (including beating Kasparov), regardless of his relatively quiet personality; plus the external factor of the attractiveness of a man vs machine fight.

I never said my explanations apply to other sports. I am talking about chess only. Every sport has its dynamics, because the type of public exposure, fan interaction and support, and sponsorship they get is different. Hence I consider your examples from other sports not relevant to the present discussion. As far as *chess* is concerned, I think my explanations are enough to explain all the cases.

What qualifies as results in *chess* seems to be clear enough for me. What are counted as results in tennis is another issue not part of my original argument, hence I don't need to address that issue.

Why was Fischer still popular after 1972? Many people think he *is still* the world champion, after all he didn't lose a match. And many people think his play is still the strongest if he chooses to play - which might arguably be true at least until 1970s or even early 1980s. Combined with the fact that he didn't actually play, this is certainly newsworthy. His personality might add spices, but I think the things I mentioned above are more critical.

The Evans example is hypothetical, and does not constitute a concrete argument. Let's stick to real historical examples of champions who did, or did not, get sponsorship.

By using the word "image", you are actually changing your argument, compared to what you've said before about "personality", because "image" could include results. By using the word "image" you are blurring my argument and yours. I could also use the word image, but maintain that the main factor for image, in chess, is results.

There's a big difference between the kind of celebrity that transcends a sport, such as Shaq or Kournikova or Kasparov, and a business model for a sport that provides high income for many of its strong performers.

Absolutely, the production of a transcendant figure is highly complex, highly individual, highly unpredictable. But that's not what you base a business model on.

Reilly Rankin was #34 on the LPGA's money list for 2007. She's had only four top 10 finishes in five seasons, and never placed higher than tied for 2nd. Her earnings just from prizes for 2007 were $408,000.

There's no predicting what will make a top performer into a super celebrity. But for me the far more interesting question is how niche sports are able to consistently generate a Rankin-size income for players below the top 25.

respectfully,
Duif

p.s. BTW, the #34 player by rating on the current FIDE list is Hikaru Nakamura.

Duif,

Apart from the issue of chess sponsorship, I am also curious why in other sports relatively lower ranked player (without spectacular results or personality) still generate big income. Why?

Carlsen does seem to have destiny written all over him. Only Anand and Kramnik appear to be capable of holding him back for awhile.

Something tells me the decline of those two giants may begin soon after their WC match in October. Anand due to age and Kramnik because if he wins he may feel that he has proven himself to his comlete satisfaction and have trouble getting motivated to do more. He has had trouble with motivation before. Right now he seems highly motivated to regain the title. I just wonder how long he can keep it up.

If he loses, he might not have it in him to start all over, working his way up in a system of qualifying tournaments.

Perhaps it is interesting to compare sponsorship of chess and the Japanese games of Go.

Go enjoys consistent good sponsorship in Japan, with various regular big tournaments, each with substantial prize money. (they do not have one world championship title)

Go is featured regularly on prime time Japanese TV. Sunday noon 12:00 - 14:00 is Go time on NHK.

There is a highly popular comic (manga) series on Go, which is responsible in dramatically increasing the popularity Go among the youth in Japan and East Asia in general (not that it's not popular to start with). In turn, it generated a popular animation series, after each session of which there is a 5 min instruction for kids on how to play Go.

henry,

Big money comes for players below the top 20 when sponsors want to use the iconic image of the activity to communicate a message to their own large customer base, rather than when they just want to reach existing fans of the player.

So the sponsor budgets a certain amount of money for "a pro at [X]," then gets the best player they can for that amount. At that point whether the person is rated #34 or #17 or #21 doesn't really matter.

In cases like this it's not about the number of people who participate in the activity themselves. Or even the number who watch a specific event. It's about what the activity will symbolize to a general audience, and how well that message can be used in marketing.

--Duif

Duif,

So this applies to sports with a large fan base, so large that association with the sports activity itself could be a good marketing strategy.

Unfortunately, we don't see this happening in chess. Even top-20 players might still lack good invitations.

henry,

The sport itself doesn't need a large fanbase provided it symbolizes something positive. That's why the strategy works well for the LPGA.

Chess is definitely a strong symbol. You'll see it in advertisements for everything from hedge funds to local car dealerships. It's not because the companies assume everyone is a chess fan--it's because they assume most people respond to the symbolism even if they don't know all the rules of the game.

Of course going from there to actual sponsorship is a much trickier proposition, and I'm not sure it's practical for chess. Theoretically it makes sense, but there's a big difference between theory and practice in these matters.

--Duif

Well yes, chess the game is a strong symbol, and it has been used as part of advertisement. But that doesn't necessarily translate into support of actual chess activities, or certain chess players. As what is needed is only the general symbolism of chess, anybody could play the role.

By the way, if LPGA does not have a large fan base or spectator base, how do the sponsors expect to make it worth as advertisement?

Interesting comment about Hou Yifan vs. Carlsen. And of course Karjakin is another comparison. Carlsen's chess has charisma, as did Kasparov's. He seems to succeed on talent, with imagination and aggression unusual even at the top 5 level. Karjakin hasn't shown that, even though he is a prodigy. Radjabov has tried but doesn't seem to have Carlsen's talent. China has been promoting chess like the Soviet's used to; therefore, Chinese players will dominate in the future. Carlsen is the real thing right now. He is capable of beating Anand or Kramnik in tournaments right now. For a match, he would need substantial support from seconds, in order to avoid surprises such as Kasparov's Dragon vs. Anand or Kramnik's Berlin vs. Kasparov. Tournaments could build a #1 rating, so I'll predict Carlsen at #1 APR 2010. Hou Yifan or other Chinese talents still need at least 2 years to become contenders for #1, and it is still too soon to determine whether Hou will become a Carlsen or a Karjakin.

isn't it too soon to conclude that hou yifan will reach 2700+ at all, like karjakin has done?

henry,

Golf has two kinds of sponsors. Equipment sponsors are trying to reach the amateur golfers themselves. Other sponsors, like Kraft Foods, want to be associated with what the sport represents when they do their own advertising to their own target market.

When they use a pro golfer in an ad for "get the family together for dinner" in a general women's magazine like Good Housekeeping, it doesn't matter that most of the readers have never played golf, never watched golf on TV, and didn't know the person in the ad before they saw it.

What matters is that as soon as the person in the ad is identified as a pro golfer, she brings in an association with health, vitality, and success in a busy life, which is what the ad designer wanted.

It's not about reaching the existing fanbase. It's about using the symbolism of the sport as represented in a real person to communicate a message to the audience for the ad. That audience can be large or small. The sponsor just has to feel that the payment to the pro is worth it for the symbolism contributed.

--Duif

Duif,

Given what said in your last couple of comments - eloquently and concisely explained, as always - I'm finding it still harder to understand why sponsors invariably limit themselves to general chess imagery in their ads - and never, ever link up with actual chess figures, whether pro or amateur (i.e., someone over on the USCF web site described an imaginary TV ad by the Dairy Council or whatever they're called. The hypothetical milk ad would initially look down upon the vast playing room at the Scholastic Nationals, with its 5,000 or so young players...then zoom in to show the kids seated on one side of a row of tables - all of whom had the trademark "milk moustache." The voice-over then says something like, "Alert minds develop on top of strong bodies. Milk helps build both.")

You've said the main reason is, in a nutshell, that chess pros and the chess establishment simply doesn't want any sponsorship.

Still, the feeling I get after reading the picture you painted here, is that the sponsors would want to actively court chess figures (or certain chess events, as illustrated above) as endorsers...to the point where potential beneficiaries in the chess world could only avoid sponsor relationships by actively pushing them away.

Jon,

The golf organizations consider one of their highest priorities the role of "matchmaker" between their pros and journalists/sponsors.

The LPGA site has an official bio for each player and a link to that player's own website. But it goes much further. The site also includes a directory of player contact info (fax, email, and phone in a .pdf format to help control spam). And if a player chooses not to be in the directory, the LPGA office will still forward letters to them, and says so in the contact area.

The end result is that it's really easy for potential sponsors to consider which pros might work--and then to get in touch with their candidates. And it's also clear to everyone that sponsor relationships are highly valued.

As Mig mentioned in his top note, the Grand Prix website for Baku had a lot of great features. But the whole matchmaking aspect is missing. And many chess pros have blogs rather than websites with little or no contact info other than leaving a public note--something most potential sponsors won't want to do.

Using a real person rather than just an abstract symbol can have marketing advantages--but it can also have negatives. Potential sponsors tend to work with those who show an understanding of their needs and a professional approach to them.

It's not a necessity. It may be that many chessplayers and chess organizations just find the whole concept too commercial for their taste. There's nothing wrong with that.

--Duif

p.s. As an example of the "personal taste" issue, if either FIDE or the USCF wanted to make it clear that it encourages sponsorship for individual players, it would need to do the following five steps:

1. Set up an organizational email address/phone number for potential sponsor inquiries, and see that it is answered in a timely fashion.

2. Create interesting bios for all participating players, including both personal information and career stats.

3. Create a directory of all participating player contact info, and publish it in .pdf format on the organization site along with the contact info and bios from 1 and 2.

4. Establish regulations for how sponsor logos can be displayed during events. The ATP for tennis has a very good model for this. (For example, what happens when a player is sponsored by Pepsi but an event is sponsored by Coke?)

5. Once the first four are done, send a press release describing the creation of the sponsorship program to some of the top news syndicates, but most importantly also send the same information to about 200 of the top global ad agencies.

These five steps aren't hard--but that doesn't mean that they are practical, either.

Judging by history, chess organizations are uncomfortable with both 1 and 2, so it's not surprising they've never gotten to 3, 4, and 5.

I think it's as simple as the fact that most chess organizations have other priorities.

--Duif

Thanks for your response, Duif.

Carlsen has already figured out how to play against Kramnik. He showed that both in Tal Memorial and Corus. He will soon be able to handle Anand as well. The upcoming match against Leko may be the turning point, as Leko is one of the few players Carlsen has had serious problems playing against. First he takes Leko, then he takes Anand.

"By using the word "image", you are actually changing your argument, compared to what you've said before about "personality", because "image" could include results. By using the word "image" you are blurring my argument and yours. I could also use the word image, but maintain that the main factor for image, in chess, is results."

I'm not blurring anything. I'm clarifying. In my argument framed around the word "personality," I never said results were irrelevant. I included results as part of my account. Results matter, period. How much they matter is the point of contention.

"I distinguish state sponsorship because in that case strong personality does not seem to have a significant role. The Soviets supported whoever is the champion, in fact every Grandmaster was supported, even every young promising player was supported. There is no case for the role of personality here. In fact, some of those with strong personality got in trouble with their sponsorship (Korchnoi, Bronstein."

I made no argument about state sponsorship. It's irrelevant to my points. True or false: did Kasparov and Fischer raise world consciousness for chess? Obviously they did. As a result they attracted sponsors on the personal level and funding for events through corporations and private benefactors. They made serious sponsorship possible.

Karpov even with his spectacular record was unable to do this. Yes, he was sponsored by the Soviet state. Yes, that Soviet state would have prevented corporate sponsorship from attaching to him personally. It would not have prevented him from attracting worldwide attention for the game, and thus sponsorship *for the game in general*, as in, funding for FIDE, tournaments, etc---IF he had had this ability. But of course he didn't.

"I think Intel and IBM sponsored certain Kasparov events because of 2 factors: his spectacular records and, also very important in my opinion, the external fact that computers happen to reach the time when they can challenge the champions, thus making it the precisely right time to promote computer chess events, indirectly promoting their own products."

I don't disagree. But Kasparov was the perfect opponent. He attracted, and still attracts, a lot of attention by being articulate in English (he can promote products in that language), outspoken, critical of Russian politics, critical of FIDE, handsome fellow, writes articles for the NY Times, fiery temper, etc etc. The camera likes him. Sponsors like him. And not purely for his results.

Understand my position. He would have attracted sponsors without all the personality. His image is what seriously upped the money value that attached to him.

"Notice that Kramnik and Adams also got good sponsorship for their matches against computers. How do you explain those cases?"

Kramnik got serious coin for sure in his Fritz match. Adams did not. Your explanation works for Kramnik's computer match. It does not account for why Kramnik is virtually anonymous outside of the chess world. Why is Kasparov so popular compared to Kramnik?

"In fact Kramnik played a match against Fritz for even bigger money than Kasparov vs Deep Junior. How do you explain that? But my explanation is easy: Kramnik's results (including beating Kasparov), regardless of his relatively quiet personality; plus the external factor of the attractiveness of a man vs machine fight."

Kasparov had already been there and done that in the Deep Blue match. He is the one who made the man vs. machine struggle compelling to begin with.

Does anybody who is NOT a fully addicted chess player know who Kramnik is? Nope. Yet his record is RIDICULOUS. He goes long periods of time without losing. Won countless tournaments. Beat Kasparov for the title for god's sake. But he has zero marketable image, so he is virtually anonymous. His sponsorship coin over the years does not even compare to Kasparov.

"I never said my explanations apply to other sports. I am talking about chess only. Every sport has its dynamics, because the type of public exposure, fan interaction and support, and sponsorship they get is different. Hence I consider your examples from other sports not relevant to the present discussion."

That's like saying selling houses is completely different from selling cars. There are principles that apply in all cases of advertising, whether chess or basketball.

"As far as *chess* is concerned, I think my explanations are enough to explain all the cases."

I think your explanations are very lucid, but they don't go far enough. As I said before, you bring up relevant points. But you seem to want to reduce image/personality to a virtually irrelevant ingredient.

I don't contend that results are irrelevant. Our conceptions of the minimum required to attract sponsorship is just different. Great results will do that to an extent. The man himself is who determines whether that sponsorship will go to another level, or remain at the level of the current popularity of the game. So far only Kasparov and Fischer have done the former. Nobody else has really been compelling enough to put chess on the radar.

"What qualifies as results in *chess* seems to be clear enough for me."

Your previous statement "spectacular enough for anyone to understand" is what I find opaque. On my view, the image is what has to be spectacular. Results aren't enough.

"Why was Fischer still popular after 1972? Many people think he *is still* the world champion, after all he didn't lose a match. And many people think his play is still the strongest if he chooses to play"

Very few people thought he was the champion after Kasparov came around. A few chess nuts still worshipped at the church of Fischer.

And of course Fischer is dead, so, nobody thinks he's still the champion, churchgoer or not.

"- which might arguably be true at least until 1970s or even early 1980s. Combined with the fact that he didn't actually play, this is certainly newsworthy. His personality might add spices, but I think the things I mentioned above are more critical."

Bobby stayed in the news over the years in good part because of his insane personality. His anti-semitic radio interviews in the Philippines, his legend as a vagrant miser in LA.

"The Evans example is hypothetical, and does not constitute a concrete argument. Let's stick to real historical examples of champions who did, or did not, get sponsorship."

Okay then. Kramnik, Anand, and Karpov have all failed to take chess to the sponsorship level that Fischer and Kasparov did, and they are all great players with amazing records. An isolated example here and there does not measure up to what Bobby and Garry did. And their records are not so distant from the latter two that they should not have been able to get that sponsorship.

I understand your explanation regarding Karpov. I contend that he should have been able to attract money toward FIDE itself, because after all, FIDE is an international body not restricted by the Soviet political demands upon Soviet players.

Fire away sir!

I appreciate your comments by the way.

Viswanathan Anand has been very successful in getting both sponsorship and publicity in India. He speaks at least three languages well (including English and Spanish), interviews beautifully, and is often the subject of television features and magazine stories. His results are covered in the major Indian newspapers, and the growth in interest in chess in India is considered by many a "Vishy boom" equal to the Fischer boom in the US.

http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/lightning-kid-3.html

Vishy himself has discussed this, as well as the value of corporate sponsorship:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/tss/tss2741/stories/20041009000704300.htm

So I think he is, if anything, a good example of how a top player can have a reputation for both niceness and good sponsor value.

--Duif

"I'm not blurring anything. I'm clarifying. In my argument framed around the word "personality," I never said results were irrelevant."

Maybe you're not intentionally blurring, but "image" is different from "personality". If "image" is the word, I could also say it is important, but with the understanding that results is the main component of it.

"True or false: did Kasparov and Fischer raise world consciousness for chess? Obviously they did. As a result they attracted sponsors on the personal level and funding for events through corporations and private benefactors. They made serious sponsorship possible."

The logic does not necessarily follow. As Duif explained a few postings above, being popular for some reason (e.g. good looking, or personality) does not necessarily translate into a business model that brings sponsorship.

"Karpov ... It would not have prevented him from attracting worldwide attention for the game, and thus sponsorship *for the game in general*, as in, funding for FIDE, tournaments, etc---IF he had had this ability. But of course he didn't."

Again, that does not necessarily follow. Why should Karpov's great results bring sponsorship to FIDE or chess in general? What makes more sense is that it should bring sponsorship to himself, or at least to events related to himself (i.e. that he endorses), except that the Soviet system prevented him to do that. Hence, no sponsorship for him.

As for Kasparov's match with the computer, did you read the comment of Feng, the designer of Deep Blue? I quote (emphasis mine): "We would like to finish this job, to beat Kasparov, beat the world champion, WHOEVER he is". For the IBM people, the main point is that they could show that their computer beat the best. The perfect opponent is not necessarily Kasparov, but whoever is the best, the world champion.

"Kramnik got serious coin for sure in his Fritz match. Adams did not."

The prize fund for Adams' match was $ 145,000. Is that not serious money for just doing one match? Especially for somebody whose personality is nowhere close to Fischer or Kasparov?

"It does not account for why Kramnik is virtually anonymous outside of the chess world. Why is Kasparov so popular compared to Kramnik?"

I was not explaining why Kramnik is, or is not, anonymous outside of the chess world. I was talking about sponsorship for him in chess events, not quite the same thing. Kasparov is so popular, but as far as direct chess sponsorship is concerned, Kramnik doesn't seem to be doing much worse, after 2000. He got good funding for his matches with humans and computers.

"Kasparov had already been there and done that in the Deep Blue match. He is the one who made the man vs. machine struggle compelling to begin with."

Yes Kasparov did it first. However, it still does not explain why, if ** personal ** image is the issue, Kramnik should also continue getting big sponsorship. In fact, Kramnik got bigger sponsorship for his computer match compared with Kasparov himself.

So we need a better explanation than simply personality or even public image. Kramnik is considered the world champion, and for the computer to beat the world champion is the most significant thing. Hence Kramnik got the mega sponsorship for his computer match.

"Yet his [Kramnik's] record is RIDICULOUS."

But not as great as Kasparov's. Certainly not before 2000 - before he beat Kasparov. The only thing Kramnik clearly did better was that he beat Kasparov in that match. And I would argue that after that match, Kramnik gets good sponsorship as well.

Kramnik's record is also not as great as Fischer's at his peak, around 1970.

"His [Kramnik's] sponsorship coin over the years does not even compare to Kasparov."

I don't think Kramnik's sponsorship is much worse than Kasparov ** after ** he beat Kasparov. Of course, before he beat Kasparov, he was still not World Champion, regardless of his other great results, hence he didn't get as much. But let's compare their sponsorship after 2000. I don't think Kramnik is doing much worse than Kasparov after 2000.

"That's like saying selling houses is completely different from selling cars."

So are you saying selling houses are completely the same as selling cars? :-) :-)

"There are principles that apply in all cases of advertising, whether chess or basketball."

Oh really? Principles that apply in ALL cases? What are those? And more relevantly, what is the evidence those principles apply to the case of Kasparov and Fischer?

"I think your explanations are very lucid, but they don't go far enough. As I said before, you bring up relevant points."

Thanks :-).

"But you seem to want to reduce image/personality to a virtually irrelevant ingredient."

Oh no, I didn't say "virtually irrelevant". I won't be that mean in my arguments :-). I just said results are more important and should come first. And besides results, there are other factors such as external factors. Plus, especially in the case of Kasparov, the fact that he got involved directly, not only as a player, but in organizing.

"So far only Kasparov and Fischer have done the former. Nobody else has really been compelling enough to put chess on the radar."

Yes, because only Kasparov and Fischer have the combination of: the best results, explicit and strong insistence to get well paid, plus favorable external conditions (e.g. cold war, computers just getting strong enough), and no negative external conditions strong enough to prevent their sponsorship.

"Your previous statement "spectacular enough for anyone to understand" is what I find opaque. "

No, I was saying chess results are clear right after your example of Kournikova etc. Compared to that, chess results are clear.

An example of clear result that's easy enough for anyone to understand is becoming World Champion.

"On my view, the image is what has to be spectacular. Results aren't enough."

But the 2 examples (Fischer and Kasparov) have the best results. Hence it could be argued, results bring their sponsorship - in the absence of negative external factors.

"Very few people thought he [Fischer] was the champion after Kasparov came around."

Notice that the organizers of Fischer's 2nd match with Spassky officially lets him keep the title "undefeated CHAMPION of the world".

Perhaps this is only believed by a few chess nuts. My point is that the few sponsorship offers Fischer got after Kasparov came around was from people who are precisely chess nuts - so it doesn't really prove your case of chess image generating sponsors.

"And of course Fischer is dead, so, nobody thinks he's still the champion, churchgoer or not."

Yes of course he is dead, so that means no sponsorship for him anymore :-).

"Bobby stayed in the news over the years in good part because of his insane personality. His anti-semitic radio interviews in the Philippines, his legend as a vagrant miser in LA."

Yes he stayed in the news because of those crazy things, but those things did not translate into sponsorship. The issue here is sponsorshop, not just being in the news, right? Popularity does not necessarily translate into sponsorship. Do you think Fischer's anti-semitic comments increased his chances in getting mega-sponsorhip? I would even argue that Fischer's more recent type of popularity (the ant-semitic type of thing) actually decreases his chances on sponsorship. The fact that some still want to support him is because of his earlier ** results ** plus the fact that he was never actually beaten.

"Okay then. Kramnik, Anand, and Karpov have all failed to take chess to the sponsorship level that Fischer and Kasparov did, and they are all great players with amazing records."

Okay, let's discuss these examples.

First of all notice, you don't have that "many" examples (of champions not getting sponsorship) as you mentioned in your previous email. You just got three examples :-). That's why I asked before, what you meant by "many" :-).

Kramnik, for all his great results, was not World Champion before 2000. Obviously, up to 2000, the sponsors went to Kasparov first - the world champion. And after 2000, it seems Kramnik got good sponsorship as well. His computer match had an even bigger prize fund compared to Kasparov's.
In fact, this case proves how results could significantly change the level of sponsorship for a player.

Anand, also great, but never seriously recognized as true world champion, until last year. How does that compare with Kasparov or Fischer? The best result able to capture public attention and sponsorhip is the title World Champion.

Karpov, yes great world champion. But under the Soviet system, hence no private sponsorship. And no, I don't see why a personal result should translate into funding for FIDE.

Everything seems to be explained well :-).

And we could add:

Kramnik got good sponsorship after 2000, after his ** result ** in the world championship match.

Even Fischer got big time sponsorship only close to 1972, precisely coinciding with the time he has his biggest ** results ** , and a strong chance in becoming the world champion - the biggest result possible.

Every case seems to fit my explanations :-).

cheers

Chris Anderson and others,
If Kasparov could attract sponsorship, why didn't the sponsorship come for Kasparov-Shirov or Kasparov-Anand? After all, Shirov beat Kramnik and Anand was better than Kramnik in rating. Are we talking about viable chess sponsorship? This is like people put money for political campaign. Once their candidate cannot win they silently withdraw. Karpov, Kasparov and all were just used as tools in the chess politics. In terms of chess talent Anand is superior than Karpov or Kasparov. Politics kept us from seeing a proper match between them and Anand. People still won't put Kramnik in the ranks of Karpov and Kasparov even after Kramniks having a match victory over Kasparov. Cause any loss in the upcoming match would show Anand better than all these three. So we know all these propaganda. Ok coming back to sponsorship, a sustainable sponsorship would come only if player politics is kept out and if there is proper system and proper disciplinary code for chess players.

In my opinion, the difficulty that Kasparov got in getting sponsorship in 2000 might be actually related to his strong personality as well :-). Not that he is scared, there is no reason for that, but he might have put strong demands.

As for Anand, first he refused to play Shirov because he wants to keep his FIDE obligations, and later he when was offered to play Kasparov he demanded advance payment, which is considered unnecessary because a bank guarantee was already given.

By the way, on the July 2000 rating list, Kramnik was 2nd, ahead of Anand. This is right before Kasparov-Kramnik match. So the K-K match could be justified as the match between no. 1 and 2 on the list.

Anand was 2nd in the ratings before July 2000, but his rating went down a little before July 2000, so Kramnik overtook him right before his match. Anand didn't win any tournaments within the 1999 - June 2000 period, even got last places in Dos Hermanas 99 and Linares 2000, and that's in the period when negotiations for the match took place. This probably weakened his position somewhat in the negotiations for the match.

That is exactly my point henry. There is this FIDE vs anti FIDE thing was going on and Anand was in the middle. You are correct, Anand asked for advance payment. There must be a reason and I don't know how good was that bank guarantee. Actually Anand should have asked compensation for his earlier preparations and financial loss. The previously negotiated match between Kasparov-Anand didn't come through in 1999. (note this is second offense, first time with shirov). The clock was ticking for FIDE cycle to start in 2000. Anand did the right thing. Had he signed he would be made to sit out of both FIDE and anti-FIDE cycle with anti-FIDE claiming victory with top 3 in their side (have one, buy one and get one free!) and FIDE claiming rest 97 in their side! And Kramnik-Kasparov would have continued as pre-planned.

PircAlert said:

"Politics kept us from seeing a proper match between them and Anand."

This is a lie. Kasparov did play Anand in 1995, and crushed him.

I am not saying Kasparov was scared (I would be the last to believe that) but given a choice he would have taken an easy route unlike Topalov or Fischer?? But at that time, things were driven by politics. What is unacceptable is the players being used in it. Keep politics out of players please!

Instead of board doing the talking, now people talk and decide who is best!

PircAlert,

As you said, you don't know how good the bank guarantee was, so you also don't know how valid Anand's demand was. It might be valid, or not. After all, Kramnik didn't ask for it either. In fact even Kasparov did not ask for it.

As for financial loss, Kasparov could claim the same.

Furthermore, as I understand it, the Anand - Kasparov match failed during negotiations, before reaching a final agreement. So there's no reason to ask for any compensation. There was not even a deal to begin with.

In contrast, Shirov did have a reason for asking compensation, because he did play Kramnik, which was supposed to give him the match. Not only that, he was not paid even after he did play Kramnik.

The case of Anand and Shirov were different. Anand already refused to play Shirov. There's nothing to claim.

If you said Anand did the right thing in playing for FIDE, that's fine. But then don't complain if he cannot play in the non-FIDE match. He made the choice.

PircAlert,

What do you mean by:
"given a choice he [Kasparov] would have taken an easy route"

You mean, taking an easy opponent?
But he picked Kramnik, who had been, and continued to be, his toughest opponent. Shirov and Anand would've probably been easier. Both were already beaten before 2000, and still didn't pose a big threat afterwards, judging from results.

Kasparov actually picked the toughest route, and in fact he lost.

What is lie?

One match for life time? Anand was inexperienced and was relying on one second for that match. What was his rating then? Hasn't he improved after that? In fact, it was Anand who won the first game. No crush. First of all, players code of conduct violated in that match.

henry,
ok lets say we agree with that Kramnik was the toughest opponent.

Let me ask you this. Take a poll NOW and see how many would agree if Anand is the greatest ever if he beats Kramnik for the following reasons?
One, by then, he must have beaten the toughest opponent which even Kasparov couldn't beat. Two, we didn't see an experienced Anand take on Kasparov and 1995 is not good enough to judge the better between the two.

No one would commit. Only after the event, all the talk would start.

You say Anand-Kasparov match failed during negotiations?

Why should Anand be sitting and negotiating when he should be playing. Isn't something wrong with this sport??

PircAlert,

This statement is a lie:

"Politics kept us from seeing a proper match between them and Anand."

There was a proper match in 1995. So the statement is a lie.

Who said Anand was not inexperienced in 1995?
He was already top-5 for a several years, and even 3rd or 2nd for a couple of years. As for match experience, he just played in 5 candidates matches. What are you talking about?

Anand's team included Yusupov, Speelman, Wolff, and Ubilava. Count them. More than one :-).

Whether Anand improved afterwards is hard to say. In terms of tournament and match results, what he produced before 1995 were already at the same level as afterwards actually. In terms of playing Kasparov, his wins actually happened before 1995, plus one in 1995; compare with after 1995, he got zero wins. In terms of results, it is hard to say whether he improved.

Yes Anand was crushed in 1995. :-).
A match is not measured by one game. Out of 18 games, the ONLY game where Anand had a chance was the one he won. After that loss, Kasparov quickly got 4-0 within the next five games. In fact it could've been 5-0 out of 5, if he didn't miss a win in game 12. That was straight 5 games domination. Check the games yourself. After that there were mostly short draws, because there was no need to push anymore.

PircAlert,

Take a poll???? Ha ha ha. Nice try. Ha ha ha.

I cannot stop laughing.

You want to avoid talking about real results, and rely on 1 billion Indians to vote for Anand? Ha ha ha. Nice try :-).

Sorry I am not going into this. It was funny though.

PircAlert:

Yes, Anand-Kasparov match failed during negotiations. And partly because of Anand. So there's no reason to ask for compensation. Or even to complain.

henry,
Though I wasn't very articulate, from the smiles I could make out you understood what I was trying to convey. I think that is good enough for now I think. Take it easy and have a good one! :)

PircAlert,

By the way, previously you gave a list of criteria for a great player. It seems that not one convincingly point to Anand as the greatest ever. Care to explain it more?

As for the upcoming match Anand-Kramnik, okay if Anand wins he would confirm his world champion title for now. But it's not enough to prove he is greatest in history. Being the greatest should be based on lifetime result, according to various criteria, not just one match.

In fact, to tell you honestly, I think a win against Kramnik does not even prove Anand is 2nd or even 3rd in history. His lifetime result does not seem to be enough to put him even 3rd.

PircAlert,

I hope you interpreted my smiles correctly :-).

I must say I am regretting my extremely pessimistic statement of October 2008, appologies all around ;-)

-Q