Such a match should not be for the world title unless Kasparov qualifies.

here, anand/kamsky/topalov have all been handed a safety net - direct qualification to the semi-final of the next cycle, if they shouldn't be world champion at that point.

it could be argued that anand has to defend his title awfully often (2008, 2010, 2011 theoretically), something he probably isn't too happy about, and that it wouldn't be too terrible to offer the previous champion a place among some final 8 in the next cycle. but it can't be done as an afterthought, when it clearly violates other players' contracts.

if one simply wanted to create a safety net for him, it would've been better to say that <if> the current champion lost his title, then he got a match against the world-cup winner of 2009 about the right to play the grand prix 2008/2009 winner - about the right to challenge the champion in 2011. otherwise, the grand prix and world cup winner just played as scheduled. but even that wouldn't be ideal.

like i've argued elsewhere: the three people that would be most influential in stopping this stunt-change of an ongoing cycle, would be anand, topalov and kamsky. a clear "no, we won't accept special privileges at the cost of our colleagues" would've made wonders to reduce the power of future fide-manouvering.

1. to hold forth tediously and at length as if your opinion is of any consequence to kramnik or anyone else.

2. to wind up the above with the same joke again and again.

4. cos you're wasting time at work and take a masochistic pleasure in reading the same pompous arguments over and over again.

or to put it a way you would appreciate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Fi...

<frogbert: setnoescapeon, anand and his fans shouldn't accept this either. they should stick up for the other elite players who are getting screwed by this, for instance carlsen.>

Essentially, I agree. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that anybody will take action, particularly the three "in" players that you mentioned earlier.

Kamsky, as he made clear in his recent open letter, is completely disgusted with FIDE, or as he put it "past negotiation". His side was anything but blameless during the recent "nonsense about a match that is itself nonsense", but of course he is also already a victim of lies. He was "supposed to" play a match for the world title. And right now he is likely devoting all of his powers to avoid being embarrassed by Topalov (if he manages to do this then after the first half he can think about winning).

Then there is Anand. As world champion obviously his words <should> have additional weight. I would be very pleased if he at least released a statement condemning the latest changes, or failing that, firmly denounced them in an interview.

However, to be honest his current situation is in line with the least generous privileges granted to world champions during the "solid cycle" era. We're not talking about the ridiculous Botvinnik rematches or Karpov rematches and "super final" seeding. Smyslov and Bronstein got spots in candidate tournaments just by winning the previous one; Spassky and Petrosian as ex champions were seeded into the candidates match quarterfinals.

Of course, one can hold the admirably principled position that seeding of any should never be allowed. But in that case, if one wants to allow the world champion any dignity whatsoever- if one will excuse him for refusing to swallow complete bs- it's clear that the others must give up their privileges before he does.

Having said all that, I would like to see Anand simply give Kirsan a straight up "thanks, but no thanks" to send a message. As a fan of his, practically I think (hope?) that for him it will be a moot issue. And no matter what happens, given any sort of opportunity at all Anand would likely find his way to a candidates final. That's more than I can say for certain other players; but I guess that's why they included the ridiculous "organizer's candidate" clause (completely unprecedented for a candidates tournament).

Finally, for Topalov himself and the Bulgarians: do I have to say it?

a) if people had taken the "normal" path to where they are in the 2010 cycle, and

b) there weren't already a qualification cycle in motion, based on different terms,

then the new system wouldn't be any catastrophe - maybe it should be tweaked somewhat, but there isn't anything there that i in principle could not accept at all.

but a) and b) are not fulfilled, and hence it becomes a bit irrelevant to me to consider specifics of the new scheme. i see that even shirov, critical to fide as he is, doesn't reflect more of why things are presented like they are, and simply starts giving suggestions to "improvements" that would potentially leave involved players like kamsky or topalov outside the sketched candidate event. such changes won't take place now, for this cycle - simply because the "new system" isn't designed on general principles but for specific reasons.

anyway, fide is in no place to enfore these changes now, but still does - that's the problem. they can't set aside the contents of the contracts between fide and the grand prix participants, but they still do - that's the problem.

Thanks, and that's right- the 2nd place finisher was also included. The merits of the details of what was announced range between the arguably questionable (next world championship match loser is seeded) the the blatantly absurd (the "oranganizer's nominee"). But like <frogbert> says I don't think that's the point.

<frogbert>

<henrik carlsen has just updated his blog, and i guess the chess media will notice pretty fast.>

Just read it. It's absolutely outstanding that Carlsen and his father are putting them on notice, instead of sitting back and swallowing the grand high decree of the day. I do hope that Anand will be involved as well in some capacity.

did you notice how well the greatest gift to chess and future world champion did in the recent olympiad? when this immensely talented young gm got to play some international opponents, he suddenly performed like ... an im.

Iturrizaga Eduardo GM 2538 Rp:2437

I think <frogbert> is one of the most informative and interesting posters at Cg.com, but if you don't like his comments, I suggest you ignore them.