7/24/2004
Topalov
full
interview. More information about the FIDE KO in Libya 2004 can be
found at
wcclibya2004.com
excepts:
Question: Is there a dilemma in the chess world?
I think there are two main problems. Life is like chess a lot but I think
chess does not change as quick as life. We have still many rules that come
from 19th or 20th century. But we live in the 21st century! As a result we
have this understanding that the world champion has to be the strongest
player in the world. But now it is very relative ….. you know who is the
strongest. I think there is a need for change.
Before in the history of chess, there were many moments that the world
champion was not the strongest. Okay, for me the definition should be that
the world champion is the person who won the world championship, and the
strongest one is the number one. It means that these two persons may be
the same person or different persons.
It is like this already in many different sports. For me, it is not really
important who is the world champion. It shows who the strongest person was
at the moment the world championship was organized. For many people, they
do not believe that the winner should be recognized as the best. I do not
really agree with this argument.
The point is that if you look at Anand, when he became the world champion
in India, in his next tournament he was the last! You cannot say that
during his tenure, he was the best player in the world, but he was the
world champion and this is the important point for me. Also during the 20
years of Kasparov as number one, of course he was not the best player
during many moments in this period.
Certainly, you cannot organize the world championships every day. That is
only a definition and we have to change our frame of mind, we have a
champion and also we have number one, number two … the position can
change a lot. That is the point in tennis… they do not have this
problem. In chess, before, we had three year championship cycles and there
were not so many tournaments.
Chess was not changing so much, but now in one year we have as many
tournaments as we had for all the five years before. We have to change.
Things are changing and we may not stay with the previous cycle as it was
before. Of course, the objective should be there will be a championship
every year, I guess. Okay, maximum two years maybe, but you may not give a
title to a guy for five years to say that he is the world champion.
` |
Hangin's take:
Well during the reign, the world champion does not have to be
the best player in the world. However he /she should be
in the top of the rating charts. In recent times I believe Garry Kasparov
the challenger was rated higher than world champion Anatoly Karpov in
1984. Also back prior to the 1972 world championship match. Bobby Fischer
was rated higher than Spassky. We
should not get hung up on whether or not the world champion is the best
player in the world during his/her reign. However we should feel confident
that the world champion is a top player and
deserves the title. We should feel the champion represents the best
of our kind.
The road to the world championship should not be an
easy one. The champion must be seriously tested by another tough player. A
challenger who should also be a top rated player who has shown the chess
world he/she is the best of the rest. Every one should respect the world
championship process. A challenger must prove that he/she is worthy to
hold the crown. If you review the tough world championship road that
Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, and Kasparov took, you no doubt will come away
respecting them as a great player and a true world champions. The issue of
whether or not they are the best player during their reigns is of no
importance. Bobby Fischer was clearly the best player in the world in
1971, 1972. No one should have had a problem with Spassky being the world
champion then, after all Spassky’s road to the title was the toughest in
history. In the glory days of the world championship, 1966-1993, a
successful run to become a world champion established the champion’s
dominance over the other players. The process took 2-3 years to complete.
In order to become a champion you needed to play at a high level chess for
a few years. As a reigning champion you establish your dominance be
defeating the best of the rest in match play. The champion should also
follow the great example of Karpov and Kasparov who dominated tournament
chess as well during their reigns.
The current FIDE KO takes about three weeks
to complete. It’s an exciting tournament. It is not tough enough to
produce a world champion. The road is not rocky enough. The test is not
hard enough. There is not forging
of iron to steel. Even
when the KO produces a champion in the top of the rating charts, there is
always the nagging question
of , well he didn’t beat Kasparov or Kramnik. Anand won both(1997,
2001) of
his KO’s with just 8 wins against 6 opponents.
That’s just not enough winning. There are numerous other problems
with the FIDE KO. Even if a world championship produces one false
champion, a player unworthy of the title, the system is flawed and cannot
be used.
When Spassky,
Fischer, Karpov,
and Kasparov
became the champions, no one questions it. Everyone respected how they
got their titles. Even though Karpov did not play Fischer, you had to
respect the road he took to win the right to challenge for the title.
Karpov was given the title because Fischer would not defend it, even
though he got all but one of his demands. Karpov reaffirmed his greatness by winning all those tournaments in the
1970’s and early 1980s.
The KO championship wears off after the next poor tournament
result. This is because the challenge is not difficult enough.
A world champion should have a 3 year reign,
a champion needs to promote the game round the world The champion needs to
take part in simuls, in computer matches, in top tournaments around the
world, and in world championship matches.. Having a world championship is
like having a presidential election. If the president of the US had to
campaign every year to get reelected, nothing would get done. World
champions need time to promote the game around the world.
Chess needs to preserve its rich tradition of the
man who beat the man who beat the man. Chess like boxing can trace its
great champions back to the beginning, with a few exceptions. The
champions in chess and boxing fight hard to earn their titles and fight
hard to keep them. The title should only be taken away from the champion
in a hard fought contest against a worthy challenger.
The FIDE KO is an exciting tournament. It has its merits.
But lets not use it for Classical World Championships. Lets get back to
the serious world championship process. The old process that produces
champions no one questions.
|
Question: A number of players were unhappy with Kasparov being given some
special rights. What is your opinion about that?
Topalov excerpts:
I also have the same opinion but the point is that I understand this
Prague agreement and all this is a result of the FIDE decisions that were
taken. But I think that FIDE did the same thing in 1997 with Karpov. They
have put Kasparov directly into a final match and you never see this in
any other sports. Even Brazil have to play in the qualification matches to
play in the finals of the football championship.
I think this kind of privilege has to be stopped. One of the biggest
problem of the chess world, is that world champions have too much
privileges. I understand that Kasparov is a big legend and a great name in
chess, but his performance from 2002 to date show that he is not getting
the best results.
So, if you do not show the best result, I think you should not say that
you are the strongest. If you say that Anand has to play or Ponomariov has
to play in the final, I think they have the same opportunity to win as
Kasparov does. I think you are a really strong organisation or if you
really are an organisation, you cannot depend on one person. Now what we
see that the truth is, it depends all on one person. I do not think this
is good.
Anyway, the knock-out system is very nice, but maybe not 128 players since
it becomes very long. But, you have to put all of the best players in the
tournament. Because if you are really that strong, you don’t have to be
afraid. If you are really the strongest, you show it, you do not hide….
|
Hangin's take:
What rights should a world champion have, well the champion
should have to defend his title every three years against an opponent
worthy of holding the title as well. Upon losing the title, the ex
champion should be automatically seed in the candidate quarterfinal match
in the next cycle. Garry Kasparov has yet to exercise his rights as an ex
world champion, one match removed from his title. Other ex champions have
had greater
rights. We can blame Kasparov or the Prague agreement to reunify the
title. Prague
was designed for a quick reunification. The game plan was to have Garry
Kasparov play the last FIDE KO winner Ruslan Ponomariov. The winner would
face the winner of the Kramnik vs. Leko Brain Games championship. Unfortunately
Ponomariov made to many demands and lost his great chance. Kramnik
lost his sponsorship when the Brain Games team went out of business. Well
FIDE successfully completed a new KO
tournament and now has a replacement for Ponomariov. Garry Kasparov
will now was play Rustam Kasimdzhanov. Current World
Champion Vladimir Kramnik has found
a sponsor for his match as well. It will take place in September of
2004. So the reunification after losing its wheels seems to be churning
slowly towards reunification after all.`
|
Question: But there are some arguments that 2 games are like gambling. If
you lose one game you lose everything. They think that the world
championship must be different. What is your opinion?
Topalov excerpts:
Yes, that is true but also there were good prizes here
and we see the number one seed reaching the semi-final, losing the
tie-break and the number two reaching the final. If you look at what
happened in India, the top 3 players reached the semi-finals.
If you look at these type of knock-out events, top seeded players either
won or reached the semi-finals. You cannot argue that Anand was twice
seeded as number one and he has twice won. You cannot really say that it
is causality.
Also, if you play a match with 24 games and after 20 draws it becomes very
decisive and after 20 games the physical strength of the player becomes
more important than his chess strength. So you cannot find the perfect
system.
|
Hangin's Take:
Well, this is why the players like the
FIDE Knockout, good prizes and any one in the top 1/3 of the draw can win
it. I like the FIDE KO; it’s an interesting and exciting tournament.
There is much to like about it. The knockout system forces players to
play. As GM John Fedorowicz says, players have to take advantage of their
whites. However this format introduces too much luck for it to be a viable
World Championship format. None of the players, with the exception of
Anand, who have won the FIDE KO, have proven to be world championship
caliber. Only Anand has won major tournaments since winning the KO. Also
the KO is well suited for Anand rapid game. Anand, the number
two-rated player, is the current rapid world champion. To many of the
final showdowns in the KO have been decided in the rapid/blitz phase of
the match. In Libya 2004, Kasimdzhanov defeated Adams in the rapid phase
of the match. In 1997 the KO final round was decided in sudden death.
Anand defeating Addams. Khalifman,
who won the 1999
Las Vegas KO, was top 40 strength. I consider this a casualty
of the system. The world championship must find the strongest player in
the world. If the system produces one champion who is unworthy of being
placed with the great champions of the past, then its no good. Also Anand
won the 1997
and the 2001
FIDE KO by winning just 8 games against 6 opponents varying in strength
from 1 to 128 seed. That’s just not enough to be considered a world
champion. The world champion system must never fail to produce a champion
who is not worthy of the title. As far as the old best of 24 game matches,
hey those matches were always fought by two of the best players in the
world. It doesn’t get any better than that. After those matches
completed, you could feel good about who the champion was, except for the
drawn matches in 1987
, 1954,
and 1951.
Moreover those long championship matches, got daily press coverage all
over the US. That’s not bad publicity for the game.
|
|