A Solution to the World Championship Impasse
by Yasser Seirawan
There is certainly no need for me to regurgitate here the
problems, groups and players dividing the chess world. To insiders, they are
all well known. Instead, I offer a brief sketch of the actors involved, as a
prelude to setting out my detailed, concrete proposal for sorting out the
current chaos and unpleasantness which have afflicted top-level chess for all
too long.
To begin with, FIDE President Kirsan Iljumzhinov has spent
tens of millions of dollars of his own money, molding chess into his vision of
what he perceives to be in the best interests of the game. The centerpiece of
his reforms has been the scrapping of the cycle comprising the Interzonals,
Candidates and Final Match; he has replaced these events with a three-week-long
annual Knockout tournament, dubbing the winner world
champion. He considers Classical Chess three minutes of
thinking-time per move to be too slow, so he has accelerated the
time-control towards a Rapid Chess tempo. (FIDEs recently-announced World
Cup will, in fact, be played at Rapid Chess pace, i.e. 25 minutes per player
for the whole game with a ten-second bonus awarded for each move made.)
Kirsans vision is that these changes will make chess more of a sport,
bringing in TV cameras, sponsors and eligibility for the International Olympic
Committee (IOC) Games. (This latter part of the vision includes some form of
drug-testing although fortunately drugs are not an issue plaguing the
sport of chess which is being resisted by a number of players.)
FIDE took the very controversial step (to put it mildly!) of
turning its back on the Classical Chess world championship, promoting Rapid
Chess instead, although Kirsan supported his vision with his own money. Since
implementing these changes in 1997, Kirsan has been the primary possibly
the sole sponsor of his vision. Many players have benefited from his
largesse and they are grateful if not necessarily loyal to him.
The current FIDE world champion is Ruslan Ponomariov, who
defeated his compatriot Vassily Ivanchuk in Moscow, January 2002.
Vladimir Kramnik is world champion by virtue of his Brain
Games Network match victory over Garry Kasparov in 2000. He is the world
champion in, more or less, the traditional line of title-holders going back to
Wilhelm Steinitz in 1886. Since defeating Kasparov, Kramnik has not competed in
the FIDE Knockout tournaments.
Garry Kasparov is the worlds number one ranked player
and has been a harsh critic of FIDEs leaders, as well as its Knockout
tournament system to determine the official FIDE world champion. Despite
fighting against FIDE with great determination, in 2001 Garry participated in a
FIDE event and is, as a result, the official FIDE champion for Rapid Chess.
(Quite a strange irony...)
The other actor in the drama is Brain Games Network (BGN).
This company staged the Kasparov Kramnik BGN championship match and has
an agreement with Vladimir Kramnik to organize his championship matches and a
cycle to determine challengers. This contract has a much-mentioned time-limit
of five years, but I dont know when exactly the clock started ticking.
Recently, BGN announced that Einstein TV had purchased its assets and,
specifically, its contract with Kramnik.
With players of the stature of Kramnik and Kasparov
boycotting it, FIDEs world championship tournament, a Knockout format, is
not publicly perceived as producing the very best player in the world. Kramnik
and Kasparov are not the only players who have declined to compete, and the
former womens champion, Xie Jun of China, refused to defend her title in
the Knockout format used in Moscow. If, as Garry intimates, more and more
players refuse to compete in the FIDE championship, the event will become even
less attractive to commercial sponsors.
The two very best players by rating, Kasparov and Kramnik,
have both offered strong support to the principle of a Classical Chess world
championship. Einstein TV, together with organizers in Dortmund, is soon due to
begin a cycle to determine a challenger for Kramnik, but Kasparov is boycotting
that particular cycle too. The Dortmund organizers and Einstein TV are no doubt
planning to spend a lot of time and money on their new cycle, but the ultimate
result of their efforts would merely be to find a rather hollow challenger to
Kramnik.
So, while FIDE pursues its vision and Einstein TV applies
the terms of its contract with Kramnik, Kasparov, the worlds number one
rated player, is the odd man out. In such a situation, the whole chess world is
the loser. Both FIDE and Einstein TV will have problems finding commercial
sponsors for their respective championships.
In my opinion, the format for determining the world champion
in both of the cycles is wrong. FIDEs Knockout tournament has
unfortunately shown itself to be what its critics have suggested, i.e. a
lottery, whereas the Dortmund organizers have announced that they would be
using the same FIDE format of accelerated matches to pick a challenger. Why a
bad idea for determining the world champion should be duplicated by a rival
set-up is beyond my understanding. In any case, without the participation of
Kasparov both cycles would have to be regarded as something of a sham.
With players dividing themselves into different camps, such
as those supporting FIDEs cycle and not playing in Dortmund (the
worlds third highest rated player, Viswanathan Anand, for instance, will
not be there), it seems that the divisions in the chess world have crystallized
even more. Eventually, sponsors (including Iljumzhinov) will run out of
patience, and matters will be worse than ever. Such a chaotic situation cannot
be allowed to drag on. A practical solution must be found that is fair to all
parties concerned and offers stability for the future.
A Solution
In reading the solution I put forward below, please bear in
mind that all parties will have to show a spirit of goodwill and compromise.
Otherwise, any solution will fail. Neither is the solution one that is
cast in concrete. Rather it is intended to serve as the basis for a negotiated
final agreement among all the parties involved, who may well want to discuss
possible improvements on particular details.
At the moment FIDE has no involvement in the Classical Chess
world championship. There are, though, plenty of commercial sponsors willing to
support a return to the traditional world championship cycle if it is
sanctioned by FIDE and supported by all the players.
Furthermore, I think that FIDE should run its Knockout and
World Cup events at the Rapid Chess time-control, and have official world
champions also for Knockout/Rapid Chess. To be clear, this means that FIDE
would recognize more than one line of world champion: Those from the
traditional world championship and a new line of Knockout world champions. In
fact, I also think it would be a good idea for FIDE to sanction officially a
third line of world champions: In Blitz/Five-Minute Chess. With three lines of
world champions, FIDE would be offering a wonderful range of opportunities to
players and would find itself on a sound financial footing. This would be
particularly true if all the worlds best players agreed to participate in
all three championships. Let the free market and public opinion then decide the
relative value of the three time-control formats!
But the biggest problem for the time being, of course, is
how to resolve the current chaos in the Classical Chess world championship.
Read on
A Brand-new Cycle
In my view, the Classical Chess world championship can once
again become the crown jewel in the chess world. I advocate a return to the
Swiss Open cycle that FIDE devised in 1990 and 1993, to be followed by the
traditional Candidates match system. To find the very best player, the
cycle needs to be open to everyone throughout the world, i.e. the best players
from the various national federations and their zones. A Swiss open tournament
is the ideal format for accommodating such a large group of players.
The first stage of the Classical Chess world championship
should be the national championships, or what have traditionally been called
the FIDE zonal championships.
The zonal winners/qualifiers, along with a number of players
seeded by rating, then play in one very large Swiss tournament, comprising a
grand total of 196 players (the 128 top men players, the 64 top women and four
players selected by the host organizers). There are 13 rounds of play.
The five players who finish top join three seeded players
for the next stage, i.e. the Candidates matches (quarter-finals).
(In addition, the five women who finish highest in the Swiss
tournament join three seeded female players in the Candidates competition
for women.)
Candidates Matches Quarter-finals
For the first stage of the Candidates series (i.e. the
quarter-finals: Matches A, B, C and D), the five players who have qualified
from the Swiss tournament are joined by three top players, Ponomariov, Kramnik
and Kasparov, who are seeded into this phase. As recognized world champions,
Ponomariov and Kramnik are allocated to matches (i.e. matches A and B
respectively) which preclude them from facing each other until the final match.
Lots are drawn to decide whether Kasparov is placed in match C or match D.
The exact-line up of the four quarter-final matches is
decided by drawing lots at the Closing Ceremony of the Swiss qualifying
tournament.
The quarter-final matches are for the best of ten games. In
their respective matches, Ponomariov and Kramnik are granted draw-odds. (In
other words, in case of a 5-5 score after ten games, they qualify for the
semi-finals. If either is eliminated in his quarter-final match, his victor has
draw-odds in the semi-final match.) The other six players in the quarter-finals
(i.e. Kasparov and the five who have qualified from the Swiss tournament) have
no draw-odds status. If either Kasparovs match or the match between two
qualifiers from the Swiss tournament is tied 5-5, the tie-break (see below) is
employed. Such tie-breaks are played on a separate day, which would normally be
the day of the Closing Ceremony.
To summarize, the quarter-finals take place as follows:
Match A: Ponomariov (with draw-odds) versus a
qualifier from the Swiss tournament
Match B: Kramnik (with draw-odds) versus a qualifier
from the Swiss tournament
Lots are drawn to decide whether Kasparov is placed in match
C or match D. Lets assume he goes into match C. That gives:
Match C: Kasparov versus a qualifier from the Swiss
tournament (no draw-odds for either player)
Match D: Between two qualifiers from the Swiss
tournament (no draw-odds for either player).
(The Candidates series for women functions similarly,
with five women from the Swiss tournament joined, for the quarter-finals, by
three seeded players. Two of the seeded players are the FIDE world champion Zhu
Chen and the former world champion Zsuzsa Polgar. Both of them have draw-odds
status and cannot face each other until the final. The third woman to be seeded
is Xie Jun. As in the case of Kasparov (see above), lots are drawn to decide
whether Xie Jun is placed in match C or match D.)
Tie-breaks in the Quarter-finals
If a score of 5-5 is reached, the following sequence of
contests is played until a winner emerges: a) four games of Rapid Chess (25
minutes per player, plus a ten-second bonus per move); b) two games at 15
minutes per player, plus a ten-second bonus per move; c) sudden-death 15-minute
games, plus a ten-second bonus per move (the first to win a game wins the
match).
Candidates Matches - Semi-finals
The four winners of the quarter-final matches play the
semi-finals. Both semi-finals are matches for the best of 14 games and take
place as follows:
First semi-final: The winner of match A plays the
winner of match C
Second semi-final: The winner of match B plays the
winner of match D.
The winners of matches A and B have draw-odds in these
semi-final matches.
(The same system applies to the womens semi-final
matches.)
Final
The final, played between the winners of the two semi-final
matches, is for the best of 20 games, and the winner is proclaimed undisputed
chess champion of the world.
Tie-breaks in the World Championship Final
If a score of 10-10 is reached, the following sequence of
contests is played until a winner emerges: a) Two further games of Classical
Chess; b) If the players are still level, two games of sudden death Classical
Chess (i.e. if a player wins game 23 the match is over); c) If the players are
still level, 4 games of Rapid Chess (25 minutes per player, plus a ten-second
bonus per move); d) Two games at 15 minutes per player, plus a ten-second bonus
per move; e) sudden-death 15-minute games, plus a ten-second bonus per move
(the first to win a game wins the match).
(The same tie-break procedure applies with respect to the
womens world championship final match, which is also played for the best
of 20 games.)
Classical Chess Time-control
The time-control for all phases of the Classical Chess cycle
from the Swiss qualifying tournament onwards is 40 moves per player in two
hours, followed by 20 moves in one hour, followed by 30 minutes per player for
the rest of the game. Games are thus always completed in a single session,
lasting a maximum of seven hours.
Calendar
This Classical Chess world championship is based on a
two-year cycle. In practical terms it is perfectly possible, this year already,
for the cycle described here to be played as far as the quarter-finals, with
the semi-finals and the final taking place in 2003.
Although my proposal above relates, in particular, to
resolving the difficulties inherent in the current situation, i.e. the various
conflicting claims of a number of players, the system also functions, with just
minor modifications, for the subsequent cycles. This, of course, is essential
in any plan, so that even-handedness and stability are ensured.
Draw-odds
As regards the present situation, my proposal provides for
the recognized world champions, Ponomariov and Kramnik (as well as Chen and
Polgar), to be treated with respect and on an equal footing. The justification
for giving them draw-odds should be clear. Otherwise, in this first cycle they
would be no better off than Kasparov (or Jun), and I believe that that would be
unfair to the recognized world champions. Nonetheless, there is an advantage
too for Kasparov (and Jun): Being seeded direct into the Candidates stage
(quarter-finals).
From the second cycle onwards, only the defending champion
is seeded into the quarter-finals, to join the seven players who have qualified
from that cycles Swiss tournament. The defending champion has draw-odds
in the quarter-finals and the semi-finals. A player who wins a quarter-final
match despite having conceded draw-odds inherits the advantage of
draw-odds in the subsequent semi-final match. It seems to me quite proper that
a player who overcomes draw-odds should be rewarded in this way.
From the third cycle onwards, there are no draw-odds for any
player. Indeed, the only advantage of any kind accorded to any player is to the
defending champion, who is seeded into the quarter-finals.
In no cycle are there ever draw-odds in the final.
Contrary to the current system (and, indeed, contrary to
anything I think the chess world has ever seen), my proposal ensures that the
few advantages accorded to any player are reasonable and proportionate, and are
given for objective reasons. The in-built advantages (much criticized!) which
world champions have enjoyed in the past - a seeded place into the final and
draw-odds in that final - are removed, fairly but swiftly.
There is a widespread recognition of the need to change a
system which has had the champion sitting back and waiting for a challenger to
fight through to a title match. Indeed, in 2000 there was no qualifying cycle
at all, and both the champion (Kasparov) and the challenger (Kramnik) were
seeded straight into the final. I believe that according draw-odds in certain
properly-defined instances (i.e. during the transitional phase of the proposed
new system, and never in any final) is an infinitely fairer way forward.
Tie-breaks
Tie-break provisions are naturally required for the
quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals.
My proposal includes two sequences of tie-breaks, one for
the quarter-finals and semi-finals and the other for the final. The difference
between them is that because so much is at stake in the final there should be a
small number of additional Classical Chess games to try to break a 10-10 tie in
the final. Only if the two players were still level would there be recourse to
faster games, in the sequence I have listed above.
Incidentally, it will be noted that, in the case of the
first cycle, any tie-breaks required would be solely in the quarter-finals and
the final (given that in the semi-finals the players qualifying from matches A
and B have draw-odds.)
Einstein TV
In the format I am proposing it has to be borne in mind that
Kramnik is currently under contract to Einstein TV. Assuming he wishes to
accept the above solution, in a spirit of fair play and compromise, Einstein
TVs agreement will also have to be sought. In this connection, a possible
solution when launching the first cycle (2002-2003) is for Einstein TV to have
the organizational rights to Kramniks quarter-final match and, if he
wins, to his semi-final match too. Moreover, regardless of which two players
reach the final in that first cycle, Einstein TV has the rights to stage it.
From the second cycle onwards, Einstein TV has to bid to stage events, on an
equal footing with all other potential sponsors. A final agreement on the
details can certainly be achieved if common sense and fair play prevail.
Funding
A key issue is money. In the proposed format, the following
minimum prize-funds would appear both fair and realistic:
National tournaments/zonal championships: Prize-funds
fixed by the respective host organizations
Swiss qualifying tournament: $250,000
Quarter-finals (four matches): $240,000 ($60,000 per
match)
Semi-finals (two matches): $300,000 ($150,000 per
match)
Final (one match): $1,000,000.
(For the quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals of the
womens cycle, 50% of these sums might well prove appropriate.)
It needs to be stressed that the figures indicated above are
to be regarded as minimums. Commercial sponsors would bid in free competition
with each other, and in many cases the final sum might well be considerably
higher.
Fees
For FIDE to survive and be able to promote the development
of chess at all levels throughout the world, it needs to earn money as the body
that sanctions the format described above. As I believe the old flat 20% tax is
too great, I propose that from the above prize-funds 20% should be deducted,
but on a reapportioned basis: 10% should go to FIDE, 5% should go to a
Professional Players Health and Benefits fund, and 5% should be allocated
to a support fund for the world championship and the womens world
championship (i.e. to provide emergency resources in case an organizer sustains
a budgetary shortfall).
An Important New Office
So far, so good, but more is required. Even if all the
parties involved find acceptable the above format, prizes, percentages, etc., a
critical issue still has to be addressed head-on if we are to ensure that the
new system runs smoothly.
In his article, Topics That Must be
Discussed, published on the Club Kasparov website, Garry presents the
seeds of this missing solution. He mentions other sports: In all
sports there are professional unions defending the rights of the sportsmen and
regulating the rules of the competitions. The sponsors of football, basketball
or hockey are as powerful and influential as Iljumzhinov, but they have to
consider the professional unions demands.
Actually, Garry is only partly right. Yes, unions do exist.
Yes, they have certain balancing powers against the owners of the professional
teams. But not all athletes belong to any of the unions in their particular
discipline. Players sometimes go on strike, but not all players honor the
strike, and some cross the picket lines. However, there is a much more powerful
balancing force than a labor union: The office of Commissioner.
Chess is not the only sport to have had problems over the
years. Nearly a century ago the Chicago White Sox baseball team was accused of
collectively throwing the World Series (the baseball championship) and was
dubbed the Black Sox for its efforts. With the integrity of
baseball in peril, the owners turned to an unimpeachable individual, Judge
Landis, to rescue their sport in the face of public discontent. The office of
Baseball Commissioner was created. The Commissioner handles a whole
range of matters. Firstly, he acts as a buffer between owners and the
players unions, striving whenever necessary to find a compromise between
the two sides. Secondly, the Commissioners powers are absolute. Both the
owners and the players must abide by his rulings. The Commissioner is seen as
an objective, neutral office that exists to promote fairness and what is good
for the sport over the more narrow interests of the owners and players. The
Commissioners Office is such a vital one that in the United States all
four major sports (American Football, Basketball, Baseball and Ice Hockey) now
have one.
There is a lesson in this for us. Although major league
sports also have league offices and league presidents, they also feel a need
for a Commissioners Office. Similarly, it would be both possible and
desirable for the chess world to have not only an International Federation but
also a Commissioners Office.
Given the global nature of our sport and our cultural
differences, it would, in fact, make sense to have an Office comprising three
chess Commissioners. (They would elect one of their number to be Chairman, on a
rotating basis.) In recognition of the leading chess zones, the Commissioners
should ideally come from three continents, Europe, Asia and America, and I
would nominate Bessel Kok (Europe), Dato Tan Chin Nam (Asia) and Erik Anderson
(America). All three men have outstanding reputations for integrity and for
dedication to chess.
The three Commissioners will jointly oversee the regulations
for the Classical Chess world championship cycle, the bidding procedures, the
awarding of the prize monies, the distribution of the above-mentioned
percentages of the prize-fund, etc. Any points of contention will be
communicated in writing by organizers and players to the Commissioners, whose
decision is final.
As the Commissioners Office will be very important,
the Commissioners should be changed every five years. During their period in
office they will have to undertake not to stand for an elected FIDE post.
The Commissioners will select a reserve Commissioner in case
one of them wants to sponsor a particular stage of the world championship cycle
and therefore has to step aside temporarily until that specific event is over.
At the end of their five-year term, the Commissioners put
forward a short-list of five individuals to replace them. Through an electronic
ballot, all over-the-board Grandmasters, men and women, are invited to select
three of the five nominees representing different zones. The FIDE General
Assembly either ratifies the Grandmasters choice or, if it prefers, calls
for an alternative slate (i.e. with at least one change compared to the first
proposal). The new Commissioners are determined by a second vote and are then
deemed elected.
I am certain that if three such highly-respected figures as
Bessel Kok, Dato Tan Chin Nam and Erik Anderson agreed to serve for the coming
five years, within the framework of the overall solution proposed here, the
divisions in the chess world would be healed. What an opportunity!
The present package of proposals necessitates the
involvement of all the parties in a spirit of compromise. FIDE is asked to
sanction a world championship cycle that is administered by an entirely new,
independent Commissioners Office. The players are asked to embrace a
brand-new cycle, putting aside all the old claims, which chess fans have so
often found confusing and even undignified, about who is, or was, the
correct world champion at any given moment. The players would also
be asked to undertake to compete in other FIDE-sanctioned events, thus raising
not only their own profile but also the standing of organized chess as a whole.
Einstein TV is asked to accept the new procedure in exchange for having firm
organizational rights to the first final, whoever the players are, as well as
to Kramniks match or matches prior to the final.
In fact, though, my own view is that agreement on additional
matters will be needed. In exchange for FIDEs sanctioning of the cycle
proposed by me here, the players and other parties should pledge themselves to
a Goodwill Pact, to be drawn up by the Commissioners Office. This Pact
would specifically state that the players agree to participate in FIDEs
other championship events and to play for their national teams in the chess
Olympiads (providing that the national federations secure proper funding for
their teams).
In the interests of the public standing and dignity of
chess, and to help attract sponsorship, I advocate that the Goodwill Pact
should also cover such matters as respecting the rights of players and
organizers, a proper dress code (but no FIDE uniforms, please!),
responsibilities vis-à-vis the media, a commitment to attending the
Opening and Closing Ceremonies whenever possible and, more generally, the need
for players to act as ambassadors for the game. The Pact would also specify
that players and organizers should refrain from using harsh, inflammatory
language about one another. It would also specify that every effort will be
made to schedule events to avoid clashes. The players and organizers of the
various stages of the Classical Chess cycle would be called upon to agree to
this Goodwill Pact and recognize the authority of the Commissioners.
In American sports it happens quite often that team-owners
and players are fined by the Commissioners Office. The proposed
Commissioners Office in the chess world would be able to issue rebukes
and, if necessary, impose financial penalties on organizers and players. All
revenue generated would go direct to the Players Health and Benefit Fund
(which would be overseen by trustees appointed by the Commissioners
Office). The costs of the chess Commissioners Office would be borne out
of the 5% emergency reserve fund that would also support the staging of the
cycles.
The Commissioners Office would be an important
innovation. Naturally, the exact balance of its responsibilities and powers
should be discussed by all the parties involved in the initial agreement, as
well as being subject to periodic review thereafter.
Conclusion
With FIDE sanctioning a stable, fair Classical Chess world
championship, contested by all the leading players and administered by an
independent Commissioners Office, there is every reason to believe that
commercial sponsors will enthusiastically support the new cycle. With the
worlds best players also competing in the Knockout/Rapid championship,
that too is an event which can grow in stature and attract commercial sponsors.
With the proper framework decided upon, sponsors will also be drawn to the idea
of a Blitz championship.
So, that is my peacemakers contribution to resolving
the longstanding afflictions in the chess world. If the parties involved agree
that the framework package of solutions that I have outlined above is an
equitable, realistic basis for a final detailed agreement, a meeting needs to
bring together FIDE officials, players, representatives of Einstein TV and the
proposed Commissioners. And the sooner the better!
I am also submitting my proposal directly to all the parties
concerned. For my part, I shall be very glad to receive comments on my
proposal. Please send them to me at yasser@seanet.com, although Im
afraid I cant promise a personal reply in every case. I am the first to
acknowledge that there are likely to be details that can be adjusted, but I
hope you will agree that I have set out a fair, practical way of resolving the
current impasse. In fact, I am convinced that each and every one of the parties
has much to gain from the fresh start that I am proposing. And the biggest
winners of all will be chess itself and the games millions of devotees
throughout the world.
Yasser Seirawan, February 24, 2002
The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of
TWIC, Chess & Bridge Ltd or the London Chess Center. |