Shirov
on the new world championship format
An open letter to grandmasters
FIDE steps back to medieval – for better or worse?
Dear colleagues,
As I wasn’t playing in Bled I had at first very little information about
what was going on at the last FIDE congress. Still, after having gathered some
of it from various Internet sources, I would like to express my concerns. And
of course, as an active professional I am mainly concerned about the future
World championships and time controls. As I can understand, at the moment there
is no proposed alternative to Seirawan - Kasparov scheme. But the scheme is
not without drawbacks. If you put together ‘first’, ‘second’
and ‘third’ cycle, the logic simply disappears.
I don’t wish to interfere in ‘the first cycle’, so let me pass
directly to the ‘second’. The ‘double knock-out’ qualification
is interesting but it doesn’t seem easy to put it into practice as for
the number of qualifiers concerned. Fourteen or eight qualifiers would fit easily
into the system but seven? Either there is a mysterious way to make a double
knock-out for seven qualification places (as suggested for the ‘third cycle’)
or the authors of the scheme know that the ‘third cycle’ isn’t
going to happen. It’s needless to say that the old Swiss system offers
more flexibility for the number of qualification places than the double knock-out.
I wouldn’t be concerned about the number of qualifiers if I didn’t
see it as the only logical explanation why all the four players involved
in the first cycle get direct privileges for the second cycle. The following
are the arguments against this unfair planning.
1. The direct seeding of four players into the second cycle wasn’t mentioned
in the Prague agreement. Neither Dortmund nor Moscow was a direct qualifier
for future cycles.
2. Ivanchuk, Anand (who otherwise would be the Elo favourite to win Dortmund)
and several other strong players were not even given their second chance in
the first cycle and we all know that FIDE is responsible for that. Giving the
Dortmund winner an extra bonus for the next cycle is definitely not a correction
of that mistake.
3. Not all the four players involved in the first cycle have higher Elo than
others.
4. Giving wildcards to as many as four players would be a giant step back from
the sporting point of view. Three last FIDE World championships were played
with equal conditions for all the participants and this was a big success for
democracy in chess. And I think the last time when so many players got direct
seeds from one cycle to another was in 1985 which is nearly the same as medieval
ages.
My conclusion would be simple - the losers of the matches Kramnik-Leko and
Kasparov-Ponomariov should start the second cycle on the same basis as all the
other players in the double knock-out event or whatever. Since I don’t
know whether my opinion would be supported by other players, I suggest that
the 200 best players decide this (as well as the time control issue) in a poll.
Alexei Shirov
26th November 2002
Here are full details of the new
FIDE world championship format.