|
Seirawan
Responds to Adorjan Chess today issue CT (140) 1289 - Wednesday may 19th
2004
those
who read Andras Adorjan's open letter in the previous issue of Chess Today, will be see how quickly news travels in the chess
world – we already have a reply form Yasser!
"Dear Andras,
Greetings
and salutations! Trust all is well with you and yours? Your open letter to
me published in Chess
Today had me
deeply amused. Thank you! Always a pleasure to hear from you. The reason
for my good
humour is your contention that the Libya/Malta winner would not want to
give up a match directly with Kasparov in favour of a round robin event.
In truth, I hadn't thought of that. It is likely that a number of top
masters declined their invitation to Libya precisely because they felt
that Kasparov's seeding into the final was unfair. Your view that, hey,
once
victorious, a good pay day playing one-on-one with Kasparov made me burst
into laughter. A pity you didn't provide Ruslan Ponomariov with this
insight last year!
No doubts that we have a real chess mess on our hands and the
inability of FIDE to properly implement the Prague Agreement has made
matters worse. The Prague Agreement envisioned a one off cycle that would
bring all the players under one roof That the next cycle, 2003-04,
would force the World Champion to win two
matches to retain his title and the third cycle would require the
World Champion to win three matches. We
agree that the Knockout system is a terrible format for determining the
World Championship. Prague modified this system with Alexander Khalifman's
suggestion for a "double elimination" qualifying event. Better
but a distant cry from perfect. With its current plans, FIDE has created
the worst of all possibilities. Placing the event solely in Libya and
doing away with a parallel Malta event means that properly qualified
Israeli and certain Jewish players are eliminated from the competition. By
doing away with the double elimination, we are right back to the lottery
system. By seeding Garry Kasparov into the final match we are repeating
the same mistake as 1997/98 when Anatoly Karpov was seeded into the final.
Must a mistake be recast to confirm that it was indeed a mistake? In the
game of poker, you must play the hand of cards that are dealt. Often the
best bet is to fold your cards and await the next shuffle. Sometimes you
have to bluff while holding a losing hand. It is tough on myself or any
other person who would try to restore credibility and sense to the World
Championship title when the cards keep coming up losers. How to fix our
current hand? We should toss away a few cards and ask for others.
Instilling credibility to a senseless system is an impossible undertaking.
I shouldn't be trying! My modest suggestions cannot solve a systemic
failure. They do however improve matters as they exist
A parallel event in Malta allows properly qualified players to
compete. A good thing. Creating an "Absolute FIDE Champion"
competition that brings in top masters who refused
their Libya invitation, strikes me as being another good thing.
Considering the cards that have been dealt, I don't know what else to
suggest Kasparov contends that much depends upon the winner of
Libya.Unfortunately he is right. What a terrible way to run a World
Championship! Wait for the contestants to be known before pressing
local/national sponsors? Ridiculous! Hosts should be determined years
before the finalists are known. The only way to do that is to create a
credible system in the first place. My worry about FIDE's plans is clear
from the following hypothetical example: suppose the Libya only winner is
not in the top ten or top twenty players. Considering the nature of the
lottery system, it is a 50%
chance that this will be the case. Then we have, say, a 2670 player
competing with Kasparov in a match for the World Chess Championship.
Really? Would you buy a ticket for that match? I would not. Why should we
think the average chess fan or chess sponsor would think any differently
from ourselves? Why plan on creating an event that could lack credibility?
An "Absolute FIDE Championship" would bring in a few top masters
restoring some of the lustre that fans and sponsors crave. We all want to
see the best players competing. How would Kasparov feel about such a
match? Would he feel gleeful for playing a 20-1 underdog? Or would he feel
awkward about his role? You know Kasparov better than I, but he has always
struck me as a person seeking the strongest possible challenge.I submit
that FIDE's plan in its current form is harmful for chess. In the first
place, a Libya only event violates FIDE's statutes and injures Israeli
players as well as others. The modest changes suggested would vastly
improve matters. What is vital is that we prepare to implement a new,
proper, fair, commercially viable system for the next cycle. Failure to do
so will mean that chess will continue to suffer a downward spiral. When we
have hit bottom, restoring lucrative million dollar championship events
will be difficult. Our sport needs to be revitalized and quickly if career
professionals are to remain
.With
Best Wishes,
Yasser"
|