Once again there is a lot to read. Our special service continues, with us
actually going through the documents and providing those of you who lack the
attention span – or half an hour of time – a summary of the latest political
news items. As usual the full documents are provided at the end of the page,
with links in the summaries leading to them.
ADL Letter to FIDE President
The Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) called on the World Chess Federation to ensure equal treatment
for the Israeli delegation to the 2004 World Chess Championship in Libya.
Although Libya has said that Israel will be permitted to participate in the
Championship, restrictions placed on the Israeli delegation by the Libyans
will make it virtually impossible for them to compete.
In a letter to Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, President of the World Chess Federation,
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, strongly urged "the World Chess
Federation to do all it can to ensure that Libya welcomes the Israeli players
in the manner in which every other nationality participating in the championship
is treated or consider alternate venues." [Full text
of the letter]
Seirawan's reply to Ponomariov
Seirawan finds Ponomariov's open letter to be written in a spirit of goodwill.
He accepts that Ponomariov's solution held a lot of merit and would be a
good means to restore credibility to the unification effort, but he explains
why he prefers his own solution. The main emphasis of Seirawan's response
is the need for FIDE to reconstitute a parallel event in Malta that would
allow Israeli and American Jewish players to participate in the unification
cycle.
With regard to future cycles Seirawan feels that the 128-player knockout
system was not a format suitable for future world championship cycles. In
particular, he notes that Khalifman's idea of a double knockout would not
"change a sow's ear into a silk purse." [Full
text]
David Levy: A Breath of Fresh Air
The President of the International Computer Games Association says that
logic dictates that the protagonists of the reunification world championship
match ought to be Kasparov and Kramnik, or someone who defeats them in the
match between now and when the reunified World Championship takes place).
In essence this was the idea of the so-called "Prague Agreement", but FIDE's
failure to organise the Kasparov "semi-final" match has destroyed the original
Prague plan developed by Seirawan and others.
"Now a breath of fresh air has been infused into all this strife and chaos,
with the arrival on the scene of the Association of Chess Professionals (ACP)",
says Levy. He reiterates and agrees with the aims and goals of the ACP, which
has aligned itself with the Kramnik-Leko match, and advocates handing over
the complete reunification process to the fledgling organisation.
"In my view the ACP should take over control of the reunification process
and should, thereafter, administer the qualification procedures and matches
for the World Championship. The title could become a title owned and awarded
by the ACP, or it could be a FIDE title over which the ACP is given irrevocable
control." [Full text]
Addendum: Raymond Keene agrees
The organiser of the World Championships 1986, 1993 and 2000 wrote in to
say that he agrees 100% with Levy's analysis. "Everything he writes
is correct, and I would not change a syllable of it. Well done!!" [Full
text]
Letter
from the ADL to the FIDE President
May 13, 2004
His Excellency Kirsan Ilyumzhinov
President, Fédération Internationale des Échecs
c/o FIDE Secretariat, P.O. Box 166
CH-1000 Lausanne-4, Switzerland
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to you regarding the participation of the Israeli delegates
in the 2004 World Chess Championship in Libya.
While we understand that the Libyans have indicated that they will now permit
the Israeli delegates to participate in the Championship, the conditions they
have placed on the Israeli delegates make it virtually impossible for them
to compete.
Unlike the other teams, the Israelis will not be allowed to bring their coaches
or spouses and Israeli journalists will be barred from covering the Championship.
Moreover, the Libyans will not allow the Israelis to obtain visas in Europe,
thereby creating entry problems for the Israelis upon their arrival at the
Tripoli airport. The Israeli delegates are also concerned that the security
arrangements for the Championship are inadequate.
It is troubling that a country, such as Libya, is given an opportunity to
host an international competition when it discriminates against participants
from nations that are members of the World Chess Federation. We strongly urge
the World Chess Federation to do all it can to ensure that Libya welcomes the
Israeli players in the manner in which every other nationality participating
in the championship is treated or consider alternate venues.
Sincerely,
Abraham H. Foxman
National Director
Anti-Defamation League
Seirawan
replies to Ponomariov
May 23rd, 2004
Dear FIDE World Champion, Ruslan Ponomariov,
Warmest thanks for your open letter at the ChessBase website. I thought it
was well considered, constructive and altogether worthy of you in your dual
capacity as World Champion and chess ambassador. I was particularly glad to
see you adopting a more positive approach than you felt able to in a recent
interview.
Let me state right away that your proposal has much merit. Indeed, if the
players in question accept it, a great event will certainly be created. My
overriding interest has been to help heal the split that has existed in our
“furious chess world” for far too long. I am not fixed on any particular solution
and I am sure that any plan that works by taking the world’s leading chess
masters forward will be welcomed by all chess fans. Again, my “Fresh
Start” initiative was meant to be my parting gift to the chess world. I
have no vested interest in the final format and only wish to see a fair, credible
outcome that is embraced by chess fans. The Prague
Agreement, while far from ideal, was an excellent effort to unify the chess
world. It seems to me that FIDE has taken that Agreement and concocted the
worst of all possibilities. Your solution, therefore, is most helpful.
In our search for a fair, credible method of unifying the chess world we are
hampered by the format for the Championship event in Libya. The first thing
that has to happen, and it is vital, is that that Championship must be a fair
competition for all properly-qualified players, so that any subsequent events
are built on the proper foundations and enjoy full credibility.
There is a rather rhetorical question that I am tempted to ask you: “Why did
you decline your invitation to Libya?” Your public answer has been that you
found it against the principles of a fair sporting contest that Garry Kasparov
should be seeded into the Finals against its winner. I agree with you and I
believe that numerous other top masters declined their invitations on the same
basis. While I am not certain that they would change their views if your plan,
or my own, were to be adopted, their dislike might continue to exist. We must
both admit that regardless of whether Kasparov is seeded into a final competition
or is joined by you and others, collectively you will all be enjoying special
privileges. Should FIDE adopt your proposal, or my own, the invitations to
the players who have enlisted for the event in Libya should be reissued to
give the players a new awareness of the changed situation.
However, that is not the major problem with the Libyan event as FIDE has planned
it. If Tripoli remains the sole host, properly-qualified players from Israel
and the United States who have dual citizenship will be unable to compete.
I’ve called for FIDE to reinstate the originally-envisaged parallel event in
Malta as a way of giving our colleagues an opportunity to compete under fair,
safe conditions. Any failure by FIDE to allow Israeli and Jewish players to
compete will be a serious violation of FIDE’s Statutes. How can we unify
chess when we are excluding some of the world’s best masters? Do you
not find this outrageous? Once again I must stress that if the event is held
in Tripoli alone it will be an unfair blow to chess professionals. Unfortunately,
FIDE has not answered the specific points made in my letter of May 13th, 2004.
With time running out, we are entering a period of no-return. Interviews with
FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov that I’ve read have seemed high-handed and
dismissive. Such an autocratic stance is intolerable and has no place in an
international body which is supposed to be dedicated to protecting the rights
of all chess federations and their members.
I’m not sure if you receive GM Alexander Baburin’s newsletter Chess Today,
where I’ve recently had an exchange of open letters with Hungarian GM Andras
Adorjan. Andras suggested that my proposal was quite naïve, that the winner
of the Libya/Malta FIDE World Chess Championship would not wish to play in
a tournament competition and, rather, that the new World Champion would be
adamant in demanding to play a match with Garry Kasparov direct. You’ll appreciate
the irony.
Let’s assume that FIDE officials relent and decide to follow FIDE’s mission
statement and Statutes and permit a parallel event in Malta. That would be
an excellent first step towards a fair unification process, but what comes
next? If all the players affected accept your proposal, I’m all in favor! Please,
sign the contract!
Your proposal does have the great advantage that a single event settles all
the claims and disputes at hand. An excellent strength indeed! On the other
hand, I still prefer my suggested modifications, because we are attempting
to reconcile the competing claims. Vladimir Kramnik, the Classical Chess World
Champion, represents a line of World Champions that goes back many years. The
winner of the Kramnik/Leko match would prefer to continue this tradition –
if at all possible. Furthermore, it strikes me as illogical that the runner-up
in the match would, willy-nilly, proceed to a new event, a new format that
he might win! The chess playing public might be surprised that the player who
had just lost the World Championship was able to return a few months later
to win the World Championship. Mind you, strange things have become commonplace
in our sport.
If we imagine an “Absolute FIDE Championship” event occurring in December
2004/January 2005, this would mean that the two winners would have most of
2005 to compete in a single, unifying chess match. A match that sponsors and
fans are sure to find attractive; a grand match for the undisputed title of
World Chess Champion. That should not hamper a subsequent cycle.
Thank you very much for your call for a discussion about the World Championship
cycle that will follow the unification effort. Such a discussion is well overdue.
Again, as I’ve retired from the professional chess world I have no vested interest
in supporting any particular system that might be to my own personal advantage.
I do, however, have the benefit of knowing the business world, the guiding
interests of sponsors, branding, promotion, positioning, commercial rights
and, above all, what fans truly want. From all of these perspectives I can
tell you with certainty that a 128-player knockout event makes no sense.
As we’ve seen, the only sponsor to have stepped forward to support the knockout
format has been its creator, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. No one else at all. The business
world has given its clear verdict. It is not interested. If Kirsan
were to stop supporting his system tomorrow, there is no reason to think that
anybody else would come forward to take it over. The market place is telling
us something and we must take heed. Vladimir Kramnik, after initial difficulties
concerning his Einstein Television contract, has found a sponsor for his match
with Peter Leko. The fundamental point of our sport is that two-game matches
are insufficient for determining which of two masters is the stronger. A 128-player
knockout event is a lottery and is not a credible format for determining the
World Champion. Why isn’t this obvious to everyone? Does the improvement of
a double-elimination turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse?
It would indeed be marvelous if our colleagues would be proactive and offer
their best suggestions for constructing a viable, commercial cycle that is
scrupulously fair. It is high time that the world’s best players had an open,
public forum for discussion where their suggestions could be properly weighed
and debated. Our Internet age makes such discussions possible and, best of
all, they would lead to a greater understanding of the competing points of
view.
In trying to come up with the best possible system for determining the World
Chess Championship title, keep in mind the numerous constituents that our sport
embraces: the World Champion; the top ten players; the top fifty players; the
top one hundred players. All of these groups will have their own, competing
perspectives. Consider too the national champions. For them, their fans and
their federations, a system will be wanted that allows them an opportunity
to play in a cycle as the national representative and to be presented with
a fair shot – not a two-game or four-game crap-shoot. Sponsors have to see
the merit in such a competition and to understand that in investing their marketing
dollar they are choosing the right sport and the proper image for their product.
Fans have to see the cycle as having credibility. The cycles cannot last for
an eternity and must be completed in a timely and efficient manner. As you
have properly pointed out, if we fail to set up a well-planned future cycle,
we’ll run the risk that a split will occur once again.
With kind regards,
Yasser Seirawan
A
Breath of Fresh Air
By David Levy
The ChessBase web site now appears to be the "official" forum for all important
discussions relating to the World Chess Championship. It has long been impossible
for the world's leading players to get any sense out of FIDE on this topic,
with the result that open letters and other postings on the Internet have become
the accepted method of airing opinions and new ideas on how to resolve the
many problems that currently beset the most important event in the Chess calendar.
Most of the Grandmasters who have any realistic hope of becoming World Champion
during the next few years have given their opinions, made suggestions and commented
on the ideas of others. In addition there have been proposals by some of those
not from the group of the very strongest Grandmasters, but who have a genuine
interest in seeing the reunification of the world title take place, as well
as from some Chess officials and others who claim to be interested in reunification
but who, from their actions and statements, clearly are not.
On the basis of everything that has happened in recent years relating to the
World Chess Championship and from everything that has been posted on this subject
on the Internet, only a very few statements can be made with 100% certainty.
ChessBase itself has made one such statement in its May 14th summary of the
current situation:
"As everybody knows the world of chess is in strife".
In addition we can add two undisputed facts:
- Garry Kasparov is currently the world's highest rated player and has been
so continually for the past 19 years.
- Vladimir Kramnik defeated Kasparov in a World Championship match in October
2000.
All logic and fair-minded thought should surely lead to the conclusion that
the protagonists in the next World Chess Championship match ought to be:
[a] Kasparov (or someone who can defeat him in a match between now and when
the reunified World Championship takes place).
and
[b] Kramnik (or someone who can defeat him in a match between now and when
the reunified World Championship takes place).
In essence this was the idea of the so-called "Prague Agreement", but FIDE's
failure to organise the Kasparov "semi-final" match has put paid to the original
Prague plan developed by Seirawan and others. ["Put paid to" is a British
expression for "to finish off; put to rest"]
Up to now the debate has achieved little or nothing because it is not being
conducted with or within a body that has any authority. Kasparov has his opinions;
Ponomariov has his; Anand has his; the Ukraine Sports Committee has its own
views; the US Chess Federation President has her views; different FIDE officials
have their views; the FIDE version of the World Championship lacks all credibility
due to number of top players who will be absent from Libya.
What do we have from all this? A lot of rancour, dissent, failure to progress,
failure to reach an accord that can be accepted and acted upon by all the genuinely
interested parties, a FIDE "World Championship" that lacks many of the world's
very strongest players and which is scheduled to take place in a country that
reputedly denies any intention of allowing some of the invitees to take part.
Put simply, we do not only have strife, we have complete chaos.
Now a breath of fresh air has been infused into all this strife and chaos,
with the arrival on the scene of the Association of Chess Professionals (ACP).
Yes, there have been similar sounding organisations set up before, so why should
this one be any different? But this one is different. This organisation is
throwing its weight behind the Kramnik-Leko match and its sponsors, Dannemann,
giving the match a level of credibility lacked by all FIDE "World Championships"
after 1990 and even some of those from the preceding years.
On May 12th, at the press conference launching the Dannemann World Chess Championship
match, the speech made by ACP President Joel Lautier provided a lucid and succinct
account of the tribulations of FIDE in connection with the World Championship.
The only point of issue I would take with Lautier's comments is that he implies
that the FIDE rot set in in 1993, when the Kasparov-Short match was played
outside of FIDE's control. But it seems clear to me that the rot was started
some eight years earlier, on February 15th 1985, when Campomanes stopped the
first Karpov-Kasparov match, thereby setting FIDE against the strongest Chess
player the world has ever known. What happened in 1993 was the logical culmination
of FIDE's actions that fateful February day.
Lautier's speech not only brings a breath of fresh air into one half of the
"reunification cycle", it sows the seed for bringing about a complete state
of order from the current chaos. Talking of the proposed match between Kasparov
and the winner of FIDE's tournament in Libya, the match that is intended to
provide the opponent for Kramnik or Leko, Lautier said:
"If nothing definite is announced by FIDE by the end of October 2004, the
ACP will seriously consider taking part in the reunification process... Something
tells me we might see each other again in the near future!"
This warning has a real sting. FIDE's credibility took a bad knock on February
15th 1985 and has been going steadily downhill ever since. The ACP, however,
has become immediately credible in the World Championship process by being
aligned with the Kramnik-Leko match. The ACP also speaks with the authority
of several of the world's strongest Grandmasters, while FIDE speaks with no
real authority on the subject of the World Championship.
If the ACP carries out its threat of "taking part in the reunification process"
the Chess world will be the richer for it. The ACP can stamp its own rules
on the process, rules created by many of the world's top players rather than
rules or edicts given out by Chess politicians, most of whom have never experienced
being a professional Chess player. The ACP can replace FIDE as the accepted
governing body for organising the World Chess Championship, and as FIDE slides
further into its self-induced quagmire so the ACP can float above the chaos.
And any player who refuses to take part in an ACP organised World Championship
will simply forfeit his right to do so and the process will continue without
him. This is how FIDE or any self-respecting organisation should act. First,
create fair rules and a fair system, then ensure that the system and rules
are adhered to. It is as simple as that. The power in world Chess should belong
to whichever organisation has the authority and respect of those who may legitimately
be described as contenders for the supreme title. FIDE most certainly does
not have either that authority or that respect. The ACP is fast acquiring both.
In this whole debate there is one question that does not appear to have been
considered in any depth – Who owns the title of World Chess Champion? I do
not mean, who should currently be recognized as World Champion, but who actually
owns the title? The way that the title came into FIDE's possession is that
it was "given" to FIDE by Botvinnik after he became World Champion in 1948.
But was the title Botvinnik's to give? No it wasn't. He won it, he was the
holder, but that is all. Botvinnik was never the owner of the title and therefore
any "gift" by him of the title to FIDE could have no proper legal status. FIDE
was certainly in possession of the title from 1948 until 1993, but not its
owner.
Who, then, does own the title? This is more a question for international lawyers
than for Chess fans. One can easily argue that there is more than one title
– there is the FIDE version, there is the Dannemann version and, as there were
in boxing, there could be a few other versions, each version having its own
supporters. So perhaps the question of legal ownership is not really the most
relevant point, and perhaps the true answer to "who owns the title?" is "no-one".
What matters most, surely, is who is recognized by "the Chess world" as being
World Champion. The answer to that question depends on what one means by "the
Chess world". Is it the world of the politicos, those who are elected or who
force their way up the hierarchies of their own national Chess federations,
often driven by nothing more than the desire to serve on some FIDE committee
or other or to enjoy regular expenses paid trips to FIDE meetings? Or is it
a professional organisation, in which the key decisions are taken by those
Grandmasters who are at or close to World Championship calibre, in collaboration
with their Grandmaster peers? Experience shows that the former does not work,
and has not worked properly for almost 20 years. Commonsense dictates that
the latter must be the way forward.
So what should be the outcome? In my view the ACP should take over control
of the reunification process and should, thereafter, administer the qualification
procedures and matches for the World Championship. The title could become a
title owned and awarded by the ACP, or it could be a FIDE title over which
the ACP is given irrevocable control – a title "owned" by FIDE but on the express
condition that it is administered by the ACP. Either way, the Chess world has
been waiting too long for a World Championship match that carries with it the
respect of Chess fans everywhere. FIDE will not give us such a match, but I
believe that the ACP already has the necessary credentials and will very soon
command the authority and respect to do so.
GM
Raymond Keene, London, UK
Dear ChessBase
I would like to say that I agree 100% with David Levy's analysis of the current
world championship situation. Everything he writes is correct, and I would
not change a syllable of it.
With FIDE essentially excluding the Israeli representatives from their version
of the championship and their evident inability to creat a genuine championship,
the ACP must be the logical body to assume control. David's point, that nobody
owns the championship – it earns recognition by respect for the strength
of the participants – is absolutely key. Further he is correct that if
a structure is set up and agreed by the professionals themselves that is seen
to be equitable, is respected and able to create public impact, then those
that refuse to participate would have only themselves to blame for their exclusion.
I hope the ACP acts on his advice.
Well done!!
Ray Keene
Organiser of the World Chess Championships 1986, 1993, 2000