GM Steering Committee
Moscow Meeting (June 1-3, 2002)
Meeting Report
On June 1-3, 2002 the following grandmasters met in
Moscow at various times to discuss the business of the GM Steering Committee:
Zurab Azmaiparashvili
Jaan Ehlvest
Kiril Georgiev
Mikhail Gurevich
Alexander Khalifman
Joel Lautier
Predrag Nikolic
Yasser Seirawan
Zurab Azmaiparashvili, Mikhail Gurevich and Yasser Seirawan,
attended all the meetings.
The discussions covered a large number of topics. The
Committee decided to focus solely upon issues that impact the lives of
professional chess players, concentrating upon subjects most important to the
top 100 ranked players in the world.
In no particular order, the topics discussed over the three
days included:
Committee Status
Committee Powers
Possible Committee Members
Time-Controls
Format for Professional World Championship Cycle
Format for Rapid Grand Prix
Chess Calendar
Chess Ratings
Womens Chess
FIDE Chess Olympiad
Titles
Drug Testing
Electronic PC/control
Of particular importance was how to constitute the Committee
itself:
· Status of the Committee
How are we elected?
How many members?
How many meetings?
What is a quorum for a meeting?
Who are the voters that elect the Committee members?
Can every over-the-board grandmaster vote or just the top
100 players?
How long are the Committee members terms?
· Powers of the Committee
Are we an autonomous Committee?
Are we financed by FIDE?
Are we financed by Bessel Koks Professional Management
Group?
Are our decisions final?
Should our decisions be ratified by a majority of
grandmasters?
Must the FIDE General Assembly ratify all our decisions?
These are a lot of questions and we did not satisfactorily
answer them.
The Committee felt that its work will become important and
that we should just make our best efforts for the time being. Hopefully, we
will lay the foundations for the Committees future work. Zurab
Azmaiparashvili and Yasser Seirawan agreed to Chair the Committee jointly for
the interim period of time and to take responsibility for arranging meetings
and preparing reports. The Committee agreed that its meetings should be open to
all over-the-board grandmasters and that it should endeavor to publish reports
of its meetings as broadly as possible.
The Committee noted, with interest, the open letter of the
grandmasters published at:
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/pragueletter.html
This open letter addressed two issues: the unity agreement
signed in Prague and the GM Steering Committee. We were hopeful that the
authors of the open letter would tell the Committee how it should be
constituted. This was not the case. While the open letter was critical, no
concrete solution was offered to either issue raised. The Committee encourages
open letters and especially those that offer constructive solutions to the
problems that professional chess players face.
Possible Committee Members
The Committee spent a lot of time discussing possible
committee members. A large number of candidates were mentioned. The Committee
was guided by several considerations; geographical diversity; grandmasters who
have taken active roles; grandmasters who would work well together as a team
and so on. It was felt that players such as Ruslan Ponomariov, Vladimir Kramnik
and Garry Kasparov should be ineligible to become Committee members due to
their vested interest in the various cycles.
While there are many truly excellent candidates, it
wasnt clear to the Committee that all the players considered would wish
to join the Committee. The Committee settled upon the following grandmasters
and invitations will be issued to them to stand for election:
Predrag Nikolic
Zurab Azmaiparashvili
Artur Yusupov
Gilberto Milos
Jun Xie
Adianto Utut
Judit Polgár
Alex Khalifman
Mikhail Gurevich
Yasser Seirawan
Joel Lautier
It is hoped that these players will accept an invitation to
be members of the Committee and that they would stand for election as a block
of candidates. Other grandmaster players are eligible for election and would
run as an independent candidate. Elections should be held during the Bled
Olympiad.
· Time-Controls
The Committee strongly supported three distinct
time-controls for professional players:
7-hour chess, which we called
Professional Chess. (We made this distinction because to use
the term Classical Chess, which is a common way of describing the
slowest type of chess competition, would be inaccurate. Classical Chess as
played before adjournments were abolished was much slower then the proposed
7-hour time-controls.)
Rapid Chess and 5-minute or Blitz
Chess.
Time-controls are crucial to every chess competition and are
therefore regarded by the Committee as a defining issue.
We made the following decisions:
We should decide on two types of official
time-controls: One for mechanical clocks and a second official time-control for
digital clocks. (Because digital clocks are still not widely available.)
Our decision for the three time-controls for mechanical
clocks was straightforward:
Professional Chess: 40 moves in two hours, followed
by 20 moves in one hour, followed by all moves in thirty minutes (40/2; 20/1;
All/30)
Rapid Chess: All moves in thirty minutes (All/30)
Blitz Chess: All moves in five minutes (All/5)
The Committee decided that the official time-control for
digital time-controls should be determined by the majority decision of the
worlds top one hundred grandmasters.
Our inability to make a unanimous decision was due to our
discussions of the guillotine finish for all the mechanical clock
time-controls. The guillotine finish to a game invites the intercession of an
arbiter. For instance, if a player has a King and a Rook versus a King and a
Knight, normally the game is a draw, but the superior side has the right to
continue play to test the defender. The question is; at what point is the
defender justified in asking the arbiter to declare the game drawn? In a
guillotine finish, a player may be simply playing for a win on time, making
moves as quickly as possible in order to push the opponent over the time-limit.
At what point should an arbiter intervene and declare such guillotine finishes
a drawn?
Such guillotine finishes are quite common in chess
competitions throughout the world. The Committee agreed that a guillotine
finish must not be used for the Professional Chess World Championship
and its cycle.
The advantages of digital chess clocks are clear and the
Committee would urge professional players to use them whenever possible.
- Digital clocks are more precise than mechanical clocks;
- The digital display of the remaining amounts of time
eliminate the need for the players and the spectators to guess how much time is
on a players clock;
- Digital clocks allow for a time-control to avoid a
guillotine finish.
In principle there are two methods for avoiding a guillotine
finish: adding time increments to a players remaining time or by a
time-delay feature. While either method prevents the possible abuse of a
guillotine finish, a preference was expressed for adding time increments to a
players clock for moves made.
Deciding the official time-controls for digital clocks was
complicated by the fact that while the Committee felt that a guillotine had to
be absolutely avoided for Professional Chess, there did not exist such a
feeling where Blitz Chess was concerned. Indeed, just the opposite. Blitz chess
is universal and is perhaps the single most played time-control in the world.
If the official time-control for digital clocks were changed to three
minutes plus two seconds bonus per move (3+2/All) or four minutes
plus one second bonus per move (4+1/All) the fundamental nature of blitz
chess would be changed.
The Committee therefore agreed that the Digital Clock
time-control for Blitz Chess should remain at five minutes per player
for all moves (5/All). The Committee requests the top one hundred rated
players to approve this decision by a majority vote.
The Committee approved the Digital Clock time-control
for Rapid Chess be twenty-five minutes per player with a ten second
bonus increment added to a players time for each move made (25+10/All).
The Committee requests the top one hundred rated players to approve this
decision by a majority vote.
The Committee considered many digital clock time-controls
for Professional Chess but could not select a clear favorite. The discussions
began with the idea that, as with Rapid Chess, a time increment would be used
(as opposed to a time delay) in order to avoid a guillotine finish. The
Committee is not certain of the players preference; delay or increment?
If a time increment is to be approved, should it be awarded
for every move made or for moves made during the final time-control
only?
This was a key question as it influenced the time-controls
that we considered.
Another major point was that while we are interested in
avoiding a guillotine finish, we didnt want to award such large time
increments that would lengthen the duration of a game well beyond a seven-hour
playing limit.
The following time-controls for Digital Clocks where
the ones given the most consideration:
150 minutes plus 30 seconds for all moves (All/150+30)
40 moves in 100 minutes plus 30 seconds and 60 minutes
plus 30 seconds for all moves (40/100+30, All/60 + 30)
40 moves in 2 hours followed by 20 moves in one hour,
followed by 15 minutes plus 30 seconds for all moves (40/2, 20/1, 15+30/All)
The idea behind the first suggested time-control,
(All/150+30), is that the player has two and a half hours to begin the game and
can use the allotted time however he or she desired. The additional 30 seconds
means that a player would have to make 120 moves before obtaining an additional
one-hour of thinking time, keeping the game well within the seven-hour period.
The second time-control, (100+30 & 60 + 30/All) keeps a
more constant rate of play. Unlike the first time-control (150+30/All), it is
unlikely that the two players will consume a great deal of time on a given move
and on the reply to it. The time-control, (100+30 & 60 + 30/All) is
slightly slower than the first time-control (150+30/All).
The third suggested time-control (40/2, 20/1, 15+30/All) is
the most conventional. The first two time-controls are exactly the same as
those used for the mechanical clock. The third time-control of 15
minutes plus the 30-second bonus increment avoids the guillotine finish.
However, this time-control is the slowest. It would mean that games that last
beyond move 90 would likely breach the seven-hour playing session.
These time-controls were the ones most discussed. The
Committee welcomes suggestions for other Professional Chess
time-controls for the Digital Clock. Following the listing of the most favored
time-controls, the Committee requests the top one hundred rated players to
approve the digital clock time-control for Professional Chess by a majority
vote.
(Readers should note that for the Dortmund Candidates
tournament the playing session will be 7 hours: 40 moves in the first two
hours followed by 20 moves in one hour, followed by all the moves in 30
minutes. The games shall be played using the DGT clocks.)
A Pause During Play
The Committee felt that eating at the board should be
forbidden but that the novel idea of a fifteen-minute nutrition break during a
game deserved further discussion. During such breaks, players are forbidden to
consult persons, books, computers, etc. about their unfinished games. This idea
certainly has merit and input from professional players is encouraged.
Format For the Professional Chess World Championship
Cycle (PCWC)
The Committee expressed some confusion with respect to the
Professional Chess World Championship Cycle. While expecting to be able to make
the rules for the matches based upon the Prague Agreement, it noted FIDEs
plans to make a triangular match event. The Committee therefore delayed giving
its opinion on the first Cycle of the PCWC until such a request is made by the
parties.
With regard to the second cycle, the Committee
approved a cycle which would feature:
A double elimination world qualifier tournament; (See Prague
Agreement Annex B)
8-game Quarter-Final Matches;
12-game Semi-Final Matches;
16-game Final/Championship Match.
In case of a tied match, for the Quarter-Finals or
subsequently, the Committee felt that all the tiebreak regulations should be
the same for these matches. Tiebreaks should be played on their own day; there
should be four Rapid Games (25+10/All) and in case of a tie a Shootout game (5
v 4 minutes, draw odds for Black). The Committee requests the top one
hundred rated players to approve the second cycle for Professional Chess by a
majority vote.
Format for the Rapid Chess Grand Prix Tournaments
The Committee agreed that the current format for the Rapid
Chess Grand Prix is inappropriate. While encouraging the maintenance of 32
players in each of the five grand prix events, the Committee approved a double
elimination match format. Those players who lose one match are still eligible
to compete for the third prize.
Avoiding Clashes of Major Events
The Committee strongly agreed that clashes between major
events in the tournament calendar should be avoided as much as possible. It
urged FIDE to work with major chess organizers to avoid clashes. Organizers are
urged to give FIDE the dates for their events as far in advance as possible.
FIDE should appoint a person responsible for arranging the chess calendar and
to publish the calendar with constant updates.
Ratings
The Committee anticipates that chess ratings will have a
major impact on players invitations to the world chess championships and
tournaments. It is therefore of vital importance that the ratings and their
calculations be as open and transparent as possible. The rating agencies should
endeavor to list the events that have been rated as well as those events
intended for rating in a simple, easy to understand manner.
World Blitz Chess Championship
The Committee strongly encourages the creation of an annual
four day long World Blitz Chess Championship. While possible formats were
discussed, no decision was made.
Womens Professional Chess
In considering the situation of the Womens
Professional Chess Championship, the Committee felt that the double
elimination world qualifier would be most inappropriate for determining
the Womens Professional World Chess Champion. (Note that this would not
have been the case if the World Qualifier tournament had been a Swiss; in that
case, Men and Women players could have played together.) It was agreed that the
Womens PCWC competition would have to be a separate event. The Committee
felt that it would be best to seek the lengthy and extensive feedback from
Professional Women chess players concerning how best to regulate the
Womens cycle.
The Committee agreed that places should be made for Women
players for the Blitz and Rapid Chess championships.
FIDE Chess Olympiads
The Committee also considered the time-control for the
14-round FIDE Chess Olympiad. It was felt that by deciding on three
time-controls only, the Olympiad should become a Rapid Chess event featuring
seven playing days of two rounds a day with two free days, making for a nine
day long event. The drawback of this suggestion would mean that title norms
would not be offered during the Olympiad. On the other hand, such a shortened
Olympiad schedule would greatly reduce the staging costs of these events. The
FIDE World Team Championships, a ten team round robin, should be played at a
professional chess time-control.
Titles
The Committee noted that Grandmaster titles continue to be
issued at increasingly worrying rates. The Committee urges FIDE to raise the
standards necessary to achieve a Grandmaster title else the title will have
less meaning.
Drug Testing
The Committee noted the interest and importance that FIDE
has attached to receiving recognition from the IOC that chess is a sport and
that as a sport, chess may one day be a part of the International Olympic
Games. Whether these goals are achievable or not, it is clear that FIDE has
taken the position that it must implement a drug testing program for its
players. The Committee calls for a greater spirit of openness and discussion on
the topic of drug testing. It would like to know if every effort has been made
to convince IOC officials that chess is not a sport that suffers from drug
abuse and that exemptions to IOC drug testing would be the most sensible way
forward.
Electronic PC/ Control
The Committee noted that unlike drug testing, a rational
concern is the potential use of PC electronics. Receiving advice during a game,
whether from a coach or a PC, is illegal. Players should be forbidden from
using their mobile phones, PDA or other electronic devices that would raise
suspicions.
Next Meeting
There was agreement to try to hold the Committees next
meeting in August, just after the Lost Boys tournament in Amsterdam.
Although there were other topics discussed, this report of
the meetings faithfully reflects most of the discussions.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Committee,
Yasser Seirawan
18th June 2002
The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of
TWIC, Chess & Bridge Ltd or the London Chess Center. |