 |
|
|
|
|
LCC Home
|
|
|
LINKS |
|
| Kingpin Book archive Book Reviews Half price Books Chessbase9 Bridge Go Backgammon Poker Shop LCC Links Special Events
|
 |
|
| Why FIDE is silent now? Dear colleagues, In June, 15 on www.chessbase.com it has been published interview with Georgios Makropoulos " Why they were silent in Prague? ", given by him to the russian newspaper "Sports - Express" from June, 8. In my opinion, the manner of dialogue and all stylistics of mr. Makropoulos, is characteristic for the majority of chess officials and does not leave doubts of that mr. Makropoulos traditionally counts itself "chief" of all chess players. Naturally, the basic arrows have been directed on his obstinate "subordinates" – top-grandmasters among whom has got once again and me. Should tell, that I for myself already for a long time have turned page of history with not taken place match Ponomariov –– Kasparov and I do not see sense to live in the past. But as functionaries FIDE constantly come back to the given theme and purposefully impose to the chess public idea that the match has not taken place ostensibly from - for my unwillingness to play with Garry Kimovich. I think necessary to not disregard a retort of mr. Makropoulos and again to remind chronology of negotiations with FIDE. In April 2003 I received the draft contract for our match with Kasparov in Buenos Aires. Before signing it I gave it to the lawyers for examination. Some of these lawyers were permanently cooperating with different sporting organizations. They came to the unanimous conclusion: the draft contract had several legal defects. The parties did not have equal rights, and one party - FIDE - was given a clear advantage over the other party - the "Players" (i.e. Mr. Kasparov and myself). It was wrong to make both players act as one party of the contract while they could not meet regularly and work out a common position. The lawyers also pointed out that the interest of FIDE officials (and especially their financial interests) were over-protected while the players' rights and ways to protect the "Players"' interests were not outlined clearly enough. On the part of FIDE only the rights were listed, without any mention of the FIDE's obligations to the players. On the part of the "Players" - only their obligations and duties towards FIDE were described, and also the sanctions for failing to perform these obligations. No sanctions for FIDE were previewed in case it breaks the "Players"' rights, there were not even any sanctions if FIDE fails to perform it's own obligation: to organize the match in Buenos Aires on the specific dates. I sent to FIDE twenty one most important (in my opinion) suggestions to change some parts of the contract, and pointed out that three parts are contradicting with the Prague agreements and the rules of the match. I asked to send my comments to Kasparov and to tell me about his position. The Executive Director of FIDE Mr. Omuku accepted a few least important of my suggestions and objected against most of them saying that FIDE has its traditions and normal practices. At the same time Mr. Omuku told me that the match will not take place in June in Buenos Aires because the president Ilyumzhinov by his authority postponed the match to autumn and divided it between Buenos Aires and Montevideo. Among my suggestions to improve the contract there was a request to impose sanctions on FIDE if it breaks its obligations, and in particular if the match will be cancelled because of it, so Mr. Omuku told me that for postponing our match FIDE will pay Kasparov and me $100,000 each in form of compensation for our related losses. FIDE took an obligation to pay it by August, 15, 2003. I must say that Argentina paid this money to FIDE as a non-refundable security advance payment. FIDE failed to fulfill its obligation. Ilyumzhinov said in several interviews that Argentina did make this payment to FIDE, but it is unknown where this money is now. In July the president of Ukraine sent his order to hold the match in Yalta to Mr. Ilyumzhinov, and once again I started urging FIDE to adjust the contract in the short time remaining before the match. I suggested that the parties meet and discuss the contract details. FIDE ignored my requests. Again they sent me the draft contract at the last moment, and again Ilyumzhinov's signature was missing from it. The contract can not be considered an official document if it doesn't bear the signature of the FIDE President. The absence of his signature was all the more strange because earlier Mr. Omuku confirmed that Mr. Ilyumzhinov should be the first to sign the contract because it was him who created this document. To my disappointment I found out that even those of my suggestions and changes that were accepted by FIDE in April, were not included in the new draft contract. I sent my suggestions again, this time I reduced the number of changes because time for corresponding were running short. I demanded that they fulfill the following requirements:
I was patiently waiting that Mr. Kasparov would express a desire to meet with me, or would at least inform me about his opinion about the contract, and about my suggestions. However, Kasparov was silent, and I started strongly asking FIDE to arrange an exchange of information between me and Kasparov. Up to the moment when the match was cancelled by Ilyumzhinov neither him, nor his office nor Kasparov answered my question about what Kasparov thought about the contract, and whether Kasparov even knew of my suggestions. Eventually I found out that Kasparov made a statement that he didn't approve the text of the contract, and that he sent to FIDE five pages of his objections, but later he for some reason withdrew it. Also Kasparov said that because the match in Buenos Aires was postponed, and then the match in Yalta cancelled, he lost $500,000. In this connection I find it strange (to say the least) that Kasparov withdrew his objections, and that later he didn't demand that Ilyumzhinov compensates his losses. In response to my requests Ilyumzhinov sent me a fax with the request that I should be the first to sign the contract. As for his own signature, he promised to put it on the paper as soon as he can spare a moment in between of his state affairs. On August, 12 I faxed to FIDE a Russian text of the contract with my signature. I left only five of my previously requested changes (all the other changes I didn't include in order to reach compromise). I was sure that my compromising approach would make Ilyumzhinov want to reciprocate, and that he would accept my five changes that in no way affected FIDE's interests. But instead the FIDE Board gave me a new deadline, and an ultimatum: if I don't sign a contract by August, 18 without any reservations, I will be replaced by another participant. I reduced the number of my proposed changes again to a necessary minimum, I left only two of them, and I was ready to give up on one of those two after personal discussions. I made still more compromises with a sole purpose of saving the match. Because Ukraine fully guaranteed the prize fund of the match and the organizing expenses in the amount of $1.700.000, I gave written guarantees to the Ukrainian Government that I'll be ready to play after my proposed changes are accepted. The Organizing Committee of the match approved both of my changes, and considered them legal, fair and honest. My first proposed change was to remove the incomprehensively written clause giving FIDE an absolutely illegal right "to defer the player's right to play in the match" if he "does not observe the time frame stipulated by the contract" or if "his conduct violates the conditions of the contract". In such cases FIDE can appoint a "reserve" player instead of the one who broke the rules and "to impose the punitive sanctions in full". It sounds rather vague, doesn't it? What does it mean "to defer the player's right to play in the match" To defer for how long, and when to resume? What "time frame" should a player "observe"? What exactly meant by "the player's conduct violating the conditions of the match"? What is a "reserve" player and what is "imposing punitive sanctions in full"? What are the criteria to determine if "the player's conduct does or doesn't violate the conditions", and most importantly, who are the judges? Who has the right to determine that a player's conduct is bad enough to replace him? There were no answers to these questions in the draft contract. In the history of World Chess Championships there was a case when a match was suddenly terminated by the FIDE President. But while in the past it was done without mentioning the right to do this in the contract, now Mr. Ilyumzhinov decided to "legalize" the FIDE's right to arbitrary rule. The second controversial point of the contract was adding a twentieth day to the match in the form of a day-off before tie-breaks, in case the winner is not determined after the main twelve games. Indeed, on January 6, 2003 my manager Mr. Silvio Danailov on my behalf suggested that there were only three days off in the match schedule: two during the match, and one before tie-breaks. However, at the time FIDE declined this suggestion. An extra day off in itself was not a problem for me, and I would agree to this suggestion made by Kasparov, but I had one principal objection. In the official rules of the match, worked out by FIDE, there was no mention of the third day off, and the match was supposed to last for nineteen days. Mr. Ilyumzhinov had no right to make changes in the rules single-handedly. But Kasparov, who as early as on December 31, 2002 signed the rules, suddenly decided to add an extra day off after twelve games, and Ilyumzhinov readily obliged him. Thus, he forged the rules that were approved by the FIDE Board on February 22-23, 2003 in Bucharest. I raised my objections because such "freedom" in handling the rules is dangerous in principle. There was one more distinct flaw in the contract that had to be corrected: the early termination of the match was not previewed in case a participant sores 6.5 before all twelve games are played. I suggested that FIDE, Ilyumzhinov, Kasparov and the members of the Organizing Committee get together, freely exchange opinions and then sign the mutually agreed version of the contract. FIDE declined my offer. But without meeting in person we were not able to settle certain disagreements that concerned the issues beyond contract. Wasn't it a discrimination against me (since I'm not fluent in English) that Fide conducted all correspondence with me in English, and I was demanded in a categorical manner to sign the English version of the contract - whereas FIDE Statutes maintains that Russian is one of FIDE's official languages. Why then to use English in correspondence between the Russian Ilyumzhinov, the Russian Kasparov and me, who's native language is Russian? According to an old democratic tradition all the participants were asked to name three arbiters, and FIDE had to pick two out of those three: a chief arbiter and a deputy arbiter. I wonder why only English speaking arbiters from Kasparov's list were chosen, and all the Russian speaking arbiters from my list were declined? When the organizing Committee objected against this decision, Ilyumzhinov told me that he accepted my objections and included Zsuzsa Veroci (Hungary) who was number three in my list. Ms. Veroci speaks Russian, although she's not perfectly fluent. But numbers one and two in my list were fluent Russian speakers, one of whom lives in the US, and the other in Byelorussia. FIDE created the position of the third arbiter-assistant for Ms. Veroci. This position was not previewed in the rules, the rights and duties of the third arbiter were not determined. That means FIDE once again broke its own rules while pretending that it satisfied my legitimate request. In fact, I was put in an unequal position with Kasparov. As far as I know, soon after that there was a phone talk between the FIDE representatives and the Ukrainian government, and the preliminary agreement was reached about accepting my requests. But then the FIDE President cancelled the match in Yalta without giving reasons. In opinion of Mr. Makropoulos "Should the least possibility to save the match exist, the FIDE President would have had used it.". It would be desirable to ask Mr. Makropoulos: if conditions which I put forward, were such insignificant from point of view FIDE why they have not been accepted? And who purposefully negotiated to failure of a match? From its part I can recognize one doubtless mistake: until recently I considered, that it is enough to chess player to play a chess and easy to prepare for competitions, not paying attention to mass media. Unfortunately, officials FIDE apply the basic efforts for attack to mass consciousness of ordinary chess players, entering of split between top-grandmasters and other chess players. Thus dishonest methods, so-called "dirty" PR are actively used. Conscious ignoring of interests of conducting chess players of the world and passivity top - grandmasters have led to logic result: the future tournament in Libya can be named somehow, but only not the world championship. You can present yourselves the world championship in football in which would not participate at once teams of Brazil, Italy, France, Spain, England and Germany? And the world championship in hockey without Canada, the USA, Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden and Russia is possible? And here in a chess today - all is possible! I any more don’t speak about that wild situation when the Jewish chess players have actually superseded from the world championship. Mr. Makropoulos can name in details weight of the objective reasons and consider nonparticipation of Jews in tournament in Libya the "insignificant" moment, but the fact remains the fact: the nation given to the chess world the majority of champions, from - for political, organizational and financial illegibility of officials FIDE today appeared behind a board of struggle for a chess crown. Or all business in in due time to leave from FIDE? Unfortunately, officials FIDE do not perceive
constructive offers, and prefer to live personal insults. I, for example, in
essence and have not received the uniform intelligible answer concerning idea
of a match - tournament with participation of conducting chess players. The
answer one: where all of you were in Prague? So if management FIDE recognizes
an absurd situation in which there was a chess world on a way of realization of
the Prague agreements, can it is necessary to stop and think what to do
further, instead of to struggle with own ambitions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Kasparov Books |
|
|
 Giant Chess Sets |
|
|
|
|
 Chess Computers |
