What do the leading players think about the Prague Unity Agreement?

Viswanathan Anand Comments:

Anand was quoted by Leontxo Garcia in El Pais on Wednesday saying that "I do not want to play in the Candidates because I am against Kasparov having the privilege of facing Ponomariov directly".

Via Arvind Aaron of the Hindu there was a further press release from Anand.

"This is in reply to the various persons of the press who have been wondering GM Viswanathan Anand's stand on the current status of the Unification.

For the record Anand was not present at the 6th May meeting. The reasons for the same are that the deal was already made even before all parties came to a common ground to discuss these matters. Secret and not so secret meetings were taking place before and during the Eurotel Trophy.

On the day Anand won the Eurotel trophy, GM Yasser Seirawan explained to Anand that the solution had already been reached. Kasparov would get his rematch entirely on the terms that he has so long been waiting for.

It was indeed surprising that this was presented as a solution for the chess world. Therefore seeing that the meeting was just a formality Anand declined to attend the same.

FIDE did not even consult it's top players who by virtue of doing well in their Championship cycles do not get an opportunity to be part of the unification plan.

Anand hopes that the Unification would at least ensure a just cycle in the year 2004. Speaking on his immediate plans Anand said "In the next two years, I will have more time to spend in India. In this period I do hope to work with the present crop of young Indian talent. It has been my intention to start an academy. This may be the best time to lay the foundation for that. My focus will be my chess and I hope at least in the larger picture chess will benefit from this plan."

Press release Viswanathan Anand 9th May 2002

Boris Gelfand Comments:

First of all I think it is very important to return to structure of World Championship we had till 1993 (with qualification tournament, candidates matches or tournament, World championship match). I think that structure proposed from 2nd cycle and further is basically good and also can be supported by absolute majority of players. Concerning first the unification cycle the big drawback is that great players like Anand, Ivanchuk, Grischuk, Svidler and others don't have a chance to take part in it. I believe, more goodwill was necessary from all parties included to solve this problem. I hope that other important subjects which were omitted from final version of signed documents will be included in agreement between FIDE and Bessel Kok such as the establishment of an elected GM Steering Committee, Health and Benefit Fund etc. Also I believe that it is important to standardise time-controls. For instance have a 7-hour control with increment or without - to be discussed (and supported by majority of leading players) for classical chess, 25 min +10 sec for active chess and time control for blitz tournament (5 min per game or 4+2 sec). It is important in my opinion to stop Fide experiments with time controls (even last year it was changed twice - what can we expect in years to come?)

Boris Gelfand 10th May 2002

Alexei Shirov comments:

I was not present at the Prague meeting but on 5th of May I still sent a fax to Bessel Kok with my proposal. Until now I don't even know whether my fax was read at all.

In my proposal (written unfortunately in a big hurry) I stated that the only way to make a fair World Championship system is to abolish the privileges of Kasparov, Kramnik and Ponomariov and make the competition of 16 players, so the most of big names would be included. The future cycles should also consist of 16 players, fourteen of them qualifying from a big swiss tournament and the World champion, as well as the highest rated player, added to the qualifiers.

Of course, my proposal was unrealistic because Kasparov and Kramnik are not exactly the people that would give up their benefits in exchange of justice. But now we have got the cycle without Anand and Ivanchuk, the latter completely betrayed by FIDE, and we have a full uncertainty about the future cycles. I am afraid that the future system will not be announced until the results of this cycle are known. In the last three official World championships nobody had privileges and the rules were clear. Now it's lost and nothing for the future championships is secured.

I understand that Ilyumzhinov could no longer pay the World Championships from his pocket but the moral bankruptcy (and I can't find other words for FIDE right now) is sometimes even more drastic than the financial bankruptcy. I believe that the only chance for players (and I am talking first of all about the players who refused to either sign the document or attend the Prague meeting at all) to regain some optimism is to make and publish a fair system for the future World Championships before Dortmund starts.

Alexei Shirov 10th May 2002

Alexander Khalfiman comments:

Questions about the Prague deal.

Good or bad thing?

That's a bit rhetoric question. In fact the reunification was a vital necessity for the chess world and to have one World Championship and one Undisputed World Champion is great aim. However, the way it was done in Prague is, in my opinion, no reunification at all. The World Championship where only 11 players can take part is not unifying but just an act of discrimination. Many players are out till 2005 just by definition and that's really bad. When somebody says that this way was the only one to reach the reunification it's still not a reason to do it this way. There were many other versions of reunification suggested and supported by many respected professionals and I find it incredibly strange that in Prague no word was said about it just as Bessel Kok's proposal was the one and only.

Kasparov's position in the FIDE cycle and non-participation of Ivanchuk and Anand?

Considering Kasparov's undoubted position No1 in world's ranking and his fantastic tournament results there were enough reasons to seed him to some special position. Actually many other suggestions were also quite favourable for him and nobody offered that he would start from Round 1 in big k.o. tournament. However, all Kasparov's successes are not enough reason to exclude many strong players from the World Championship. This group, of course, includes Anand and Ivanchuk but is not just limited to them. So, in my opinion, just adding both grandmasters (somehow) to the existing format wouldn't solve the problem at all. Excluding players like Grischuk, Svidler, Karpov, Dreev, Lautier etc. from the World Championship is just unfair. Maybe they must start from some qualifying stage but they must have right to compete there - it's the only fair solution.

What do you expect of the 2nd cycle?

Well I still hope that Bessel Kok's plan will be revised somehow and the Reunification cycle will be more inclusive. As a matter of fact, the document signed in Prague contains only the words "FIDE supports THE PRINCIPLES of unity plan presented by Bessel Kok". So it's just about principles - the plan itself is not supported yet, at least formally. At the same time, FIDE vice-president Mr.Makroupolos publicly stated then that "FIDE will do the best to find the fairest format and to include all the best players in the World Championship cycle". So let's wait. However, I'm really worried that if the plan by Bessel Kok will work and in 2003 the chess world will have the FIDE World Championship cycle consisting of 2(!) players then the future World Championship would be organised for some limited top group again. Of course, it's unfair but now we're dangerously close to this "bright" future.

Alexander Khalifman 12th May 2002

Brief Vesselin Topalov Comment

I guess any agreement was better than nothing. Kasparov got all he wanted and I believe now Anand and Ivanchuk are the big losers. As always chessplayers were not united....

The winners and losers by Jaan Ehlvest

A week ago the chess world was keenly following the Prague meeting. It was some kind of chess politics game played on 6th of May in the Four Season hotel in Prague. Today this meeting is already history, although 50 years have not past yet let me try to present my views what really happened. We like to compare the chess with some kind of war game. The Yalta conference in 1944 saw all big players at the table. Prague was not exception. Everybody was present. There was made some kind of unity declaration. Who needed it and why. When I was preparing my trip to Prague I did not take Seirawan`s proposals very seriously. I saw in it desperate player who wants to be involved in "big" game again. Just let me remind you how the pawns were placed before Prague meeting. Legal rights of chess world were in possession of FIDE and actually they have always been. Looking at FIDE side there was not anything they needed to unite or separate. Kasparov in his interview on his own site pointed that since one cannot consider Ilyumzhinov’s personal money as a guarantee of stability in professional chess world, no matter what my young associates say about it. For me this reason for FIDE seems too naive. FIDE as democratic organization relies on his members opinions and in general must consider the opinion of every chess player. When in the meeting Mr. Kramnik was worried about regular chess players gain of this unity plan he was 100% right. What it really gives to players who are not in charge of the unification program.

They just need to wait when the process is over. It takes minimum one and half year. On the other hand Mr. Kramnik forgot the fact that either me nor Mr. Shirov needed Einstein World Champion or similar one. Now in July in Dortmund seven players will decide who has the right to meet Kramnik. T his is outmost non democratic way in competitive sport as chess should be and this is why the FIDE current World Championships were created.

Kramnik was most reluctant to the unity plan itself or its content. As I see and the bystander may agree with me Mr. Kramnik actually gained a lot. I pointed out that nobody and the FIDE in particular did not have any public obligation to Kramnik. Mr. Ilyumzhinov several times publicly declared that FIDE doors are open to everybody and no sanctions are taken against any chess player. The commitments Kramnik may have had or not with third parties were his purely personal affairs and therefore the Prague meeting initiators had chosen to be very soft on him. I am afraid that in big poll with all chess players it would had been more difficult for him to defend his rights as third party World Champion. Kasparov who lost the title to Kramnik is already criticized that he gained too much privileges from the Prague agreement. I am not familiar of the insider information, but it seems to me that whole point of the Prague meeting was to heel the wounds between Kasparov and FIDE.

In Prague there was mentioned several times that there is no ideal pattern of the unification and to satisfy all parties. Kasparov is back in FIDE and all chess players including former champions may prove their superiority over him already in near future in Moscow Grand Prix tournament in the beginning of June. The sport is cruel and Mr. Anand still must remember his defeat against Kasparov in NY in 1995.

The conclusion. FIDE truly understands the principles of chess. Sometimes there can not be only winners and losers and FIDE gratefully took the opportunity to participate in the agreement which satisfies all parties of the chess world and strengthens its own position. I believe that many grand masters remember B essel Kok`s enthusiastic speeches during the days of GMA and I believe that his return back to top chess is mostly welcome. The question who gained the most in Prague is not so important because nobody lost.

Jaan Ehlvest 15th May 2002

The follow up of "The winners and losers" by Jaan Ehlvest 17th May 2002

I got some critics that I had defended the interest of FIDE in above mentioned reference and there in Prague were some losers. I must say that I am not herald of FIDE and I do not think that FIDE needs it. I believe that I am quite neutral. I do not like many things in Chess World, but I am not in position do change much and some compromise is essential. If for a moment we could forget who is who in chess and imagine that instead of Kasparov we visualize somebody else, then the bargaining looks completely different. Suddenly we may realize that there is nothing to unite. There must be a new fresh start for everybody. Because not everybody is equal we the losers, I also lost to Garry too many games, must wait nearly two years to have another chance. All depends now on the realistic business plan. The positive effect of the unity to media is welcome but as we know chess lacks connection with big production. Can we find money for chess in some basic value or we still depend on some corrupted middle man. Whose main slogan is live yourself and let others live. I hope that in next FIDE congress we need discuss this issue very closely and the opinion or comments of chess players must be taken into consideration. Even myself I feel sometimes I can lose my temper when we consider the work done by European Chess Union. Sorry but I missed the point. The point however is that after or during the preparation of well known business plan the people responsible for our unity must not forget the losers. Some kind of Dortmund two must be created for chess players who are not involved in binding events. In this case probably all parties are satisfied. Because the virtual World Wide Chess Organization must have ability to keep money (sponsorship) constantly in chess and avoid speculation with the deficit of money on one hand and on the other hand what is even more important to insure that the means (money and tournaments) are equally divided among chess players according to their potential standings.

Seirawan, Kasparov and Kramnik comments on Kasparovchess.com site. Links:

Kramnik comment. Kasparov comment and Seirawan comment

The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of TWIC, Chess & Bridge Ltd or the London Chess Center.