INTERVIEW
for:
the Official Magazine of the Catalan Chess Federation "El Butlletí d'Escacs"
by:
Ana Matnadze
What does Yasser Seirawan think about
World Championship cycle and matches?
I don’t like the FIDE cycle at all. I think it is foolish, without sense, which
is negative for sponsors, the public and for the players.
Let us start with the obvious, chess does not have a
“Premiere League,” a “Grand Prix” or a “World Cup.” We are without a ‘season’ which exists in
most sports. What we do have is a “World
Chess Championship.” In my view, this
should be an annual event. Full
stop! Once you think about this and
reach the same conclusion questions start popping into mind, such as “how would
an annual cycle work?” As well as other
questions.
So let us step back and think of how would we create
an ‘annual cycle’ with the ‘tools’ that we have in hand today?
First we come to the obvious question, “What would the
‘final’ competition look like?” Should
we have a ‘traditional’ one-on-one match?
Or should the ‘final’ competition feature a tournament with a double
round robin or quadruple round robin final?
If you stop and choose one or the other, there will be complaints from
one set of fans who prefer one type (strongly) over the other. Once that awareness seeps in, the answer is
obvious, you have both.
Today, we have a ‘strange’ cycle to say the
least. Let us be generous, and say that
today’s cycle is a “fixed” two year cycle where we have “continental
championships” bringing “qualifiers” who compete in a 128 player Knockout
event, the World Cup. The top three
players qualify for a Candidates Tournament, alongside three highest rated
players (other than the existing World Champion), the runner-up to the previous
Championship match and a nominee “wild-card” from the Candidate’s Tournament
organizer. From the Candidate’s tournament
a “Challenger” emerges and then a match is played. All of these events are staged in a two year
cycle (or so). It is what it is and
these are the tools we have today. I
think the cycle is stupid. Why?
First of all, let us think about the role of the World
Champion. Let us presume that the World
Champion is the strongest, most interesting chess player in the world. That the fans, the public, the media all love
him/her and thrill to their every contest!
How exciting! Well guess what, in
this entire ‘two year’ cycle the World Champion does nothing! He/she does not play. Not in the National Championship, the
Continentals, not in the Knockout, not in the Candidates. The World Champion waits. When a Challenger is ‘born’ at long last, the
World Champion comes out of the cacoon to play a 12-game match. Doesn’t that strike you as a silly
system? It certainly does me!
Imagine, if Barcelona won the Premiere League in Spain
and was declared so good, they wouldn’t have to play in the League anymore. No, the team would wait for a Challenger and
Barcelona would play a ‘match’ against the Challenger. That’s all.
The public would be confused. It
is with a similar ‘confusion’ as this example that I, a professional player,
look at the world of chess. We have a
stupid system for determining the World Champion. If it makes no sense to me, then how can I
‘sell the system’ to a sponsor? For
chess it gets even worse!
Let us look at the World Chess Championship and the
elite world of chess today. We all know
and love Viswanathand Anand. We couldn’t
ask for a better chess ambassador. Vishy
is a prince and a deserved World Champion!
No questions. But is he ‘head and
shoulders’ above his colleagues and nearest rivals? I don’t think that even Vishy would make such
a claim. Rather the contrary, that he
does feel that he is an ‘elite’ player with a few, ‘very close rivals.’ Yet Vishy is separated out of this ‘elite’
group and put on a pedestal and removed from playing.
The world’s number one player, Magnus Carlsen,
considers the system ‘unfair’ and withdrew from the cycle. This is terrible for chess, for the public
for sponsors. This is important to
understand: Magnus is right! Vishy is
but one player in an ‘elite circle’ of company that includes, Carlsen, Anand,
Aronian, Kramnik, Topalov, it is simply wrong that by winning this or that
event, the World Champion is put on a pedestal above all the rest!
Again, if I were ‘chess dictator’ I’d change the
system dramatically. First, I would have an annual World Championship title
event. I would keep the two year cycle as is, with the
following changes, I would make the “Candidates Tournament”, a double round
robin of the eight players, a World Championship tournament. In this case, what I’d have in mind is that
the World Championship plays in this event, alongside 7 other players. Three from the Knockout (World Cup); three
from the rating list; one organizer nominee.
(Eventually, I’d scrap the nominee and include the
winner of the Grand Prix.) All players
would be encouraged to play in the World Cup.
Every other year there would be a 12 game World
Championship match. It would feature the
world’s number one rated player and the world’s number two rated player. Full stop.
Before we stop and complain, let us think about the
above for a moment and elaborate things in greater detail.
First let us suppose the winner of the World
Championship ‘tournament’ is neither the number one or number two player in the
world by the rating list, that means the (tournament) World Champion would NOT
play in the following World Championship Match next year. The privileges of the World Champion don’t
exist. To win, defend, or keep the title
the World Champion has to compete and perform!
If the World Champion ‘falls out of form’ and is surpassed by others,
this is sport! With an annual
championship event, the player will have opportunity to ‘get back into shape’
and compete soon again.
So, every second year, there would be a 12-game match
for the world championship, for say one million Euros, minimum, featuring
number one and number two. A fine pay
day. The entire public would understand:
number one versus number two.
Simple. In sport, if a player is
unable to compete, due to physical injury, the player is scrapped and replaced. Simple.
If number one or number two doesn’t want to compete, number three is
invited and so on. There must be a
competition!
Some will complain that the above match is “too elite”
or perhaps doesn’t feature the existing World Champion. They are wrong. Becoming one of the highest rated players in
the world is the most democratic thing in chess! Everyone, everyday, has opportunities to
raise their rating. Just go out and
compete! Win a high number of games –
and you too may one day become the highest rated player in the world! No one is stopping you. Everyone has a chance to gain a high rating!
Next, I’d put in the rules, that a ‘high rated player’
could not ‘sit’ on their rating. An
‘activity requirement’ of at least thirty games, played three months prior to
the match is needed to be eligible to ‘accept’ an invitation to the match. A player MUST be active. Indeed, thirty games in a twelve month period
can hardly be considered ‘onerous.’
Too, I’d require that any player, in either the Match
or the Tournament for the World Title, is required to compete in their National
Championship – only if the National Championship is a round robin – as well as
for their nations Olympiad Team. This is
a quid pro quo agreement. A player that
is able to play in the Tournament and Match will be very well paid. It is not too much of an ‘ask’ that such
players support their National Championships and National Team. This is a ‘give back’ to their own countrymen
and colleagues!
So the way the World Championships would work is that
one year, a double round robin of various top ranked players and qualifiers
would play for the World Championship.
This would mean that every person would have two clear pathways of
qualifying: Become one of the top three rated players in the world or win the
Continentals and place in the top three of the World Cup and you are in.
This type of cycle is what the world of chess needs
and what sponsors would support! Knowing
that there is a World Championship every year at stake is wonderful for
chess. The chess world wants to see a
‘showdown’ between the top two players; the world wants to see opportunities
for their national champions to compete and to know who is the world’s best
‘tournament player’ as well as best in ‘match play.’
The system is fair to everyone.
In time, the process for the Tournament World
Championship should be clarified and made more uniform, but if we go in this
direction, chess will grow and more sponsors will be ‘discovered’ along the
way.
There are emerging younger and younger chess geniuses every day. What do
you think about this?
Marvelous! The
more the merrier! And I totally agree,
new talents are emerging from all over the world and they are better and
stronger and younger than ever before.
Welcome!
Which of these young players have the potential, in your opinion, to
become a World Champion, if any?
Well, my goodness, all of them have the
potential. Smile. Seriously, to mention just a few names
without slighting in any way those not mentioned, Magnus Carlsen, simply will
be WC one day; Sergey Karaiakin of Russia; Timor Radjabov Azberjian; Hikaru
Nakamura USA; Le Quong, Vietnam; Anish Giri Holland; all of these names and
many others stand out in my mind as likely WC’s.
About the time controls Mr. Seirawan thinks that…
I’m disgusted with the time controls! My chief complaint is that they are not
standardized. To my mind, there are
three ‘types’ of chess tournaments: Classical, Rapid and Blitz. Honestly, I don’t care what the time controls
for these three disciplines are, only that they should be the same for all
tournaments! Today, a “Classical”
tournament will have all kinds of different time controls. It is terrible. For a professional, they are constantly
recalibrating themselves for all these controls which can be different from
event to event in the extreme. This too,
has been a failure from the FIDE, official Federations and the Professional
players. In fact, it is just stupid.
If I were chess dictator I would say, “For the next
two years we will play our three disciplines with these and only these
‘standard’ time controls. Full
stop. At the end of two years, we will
review the results. If we discover that
some ‘tweaking’ is necessary, we will change the standard and practice them for
two years…” And so forth and so on,
eventually ‘settling’ on the three standards that we all like best, which works
for all parties, including organizers.
I would start with a Classical time control of 90
minutes for 40 moves with a thirty second bonus for all moves made at move
one. For the second time control 30
minutes for 20 moves (with the thirty second bonus) for the third time control
15 minutes (with the thirty second bonus) for the rest of the game. My reasoning for this time control is that a
Classical game, will obviously be the longest of the three disciplines. A player has physical needs, such as
nutrition, drinks, visiting the restroom and so on. The three distinct time controls, allow the
player to ‘comfortably’ meet their physical needs. It is simply intolerable to be sitting at the
board, with a strong physical need to go to the restroom and being unable to do
so because you are playing on ‘increment time’ only.
For Rapid Chess, I’d start with 20 minutes for all the
moves of the whole game with a 10 second bonus for each move made.
For Blitz Chess, I’d start with three minutes for all
the moves of the whole game with a 2 second bonus for each move made.
Again, at the end of a two year period, the results
should be reviewed and tweaked if necessary.
If not tweaking is deemed necessary, the standards are kept for the next
two years.
The whole point is that such a banal thing as time
controls should be standardized around the world.
 |
| Yasser Chatting with GM Spraggett |
What would be your advice to young people who are just starting to play
chess and take it seriously?
Have fun. Enjoy
what you are doing. Take your work
seriously. If you get too stressed, take
a break. If you apply yourself, you will
get mentally tougher, much more disciplined, feel a greater sense of personal
empowerment and learn to succeed in anything you want to do. Believe in yourself.
You have played so many interesting and legenday opponents that others
only dream to meet. Which player impressed you the most both chesswise and in
personality matters?
My goodness! So
many to mention. Bent Larsen was my
personal hero and I’m much indebted to Victor Kortchnoi just to mention
two. There at the board manners of
Alexander Beliavsky, Jan Timman and Judith Polgar are simply exemplary. In terms of writers, Mikhail Tal, John Nunn
and Jeremy Silman are all superb. There
are so many others as well. Chess is
full of fascinating personalities and interesting people!
Do you coach people? If so, who are
your pupils if it is not a secret?
In general no.
I’ve trained with Victor Kortchnoi and Jan Timman. I’ve done some work with Daniel Stellwagen
and recently Ivo Timmermans. Much of
this work is on a friendly, although serious basis. Perhaps in the future, I’ll ‘become’ a chess
coach, but for now, it hasn’t happened.
What are your plans for the future, besides passing the 2700 hurdle?
I’d like to help the USA team at next year’s Olympiad.
A thousand thanks, Mr. Seirawan, for the
indescriptibly interesting interview. I could not miss your numerous
fans´chance to ask you a few questions as well. Got many, chose three. So, here
they go…
The Bonus Questions from a fan:
GM Marc Narciso: “Mr. Seirawan, are the
supposed hypnotic forces of Mihail Tal over his opponents a mere legend or did
you also feel them?”
They are both!
More legend and yes I did feel them as well. When I played against Karpov and Kasparov
both, you could feel their ‘energy and determination’ to defeat you. At times they would look in my direction, not
necessarily to ‘disturb’ but at such moments, you understood they wanted to
win!
“What is your opinion about Viktor
Korchnoi and chess longevity in general; how is it possible to play so well at
80? What would be your explanation of the phenomenon?”
Sadly, I have no answers. Victor is just fantastic. As by the way was Smyslov. They just knew where the pieces had to go and
put them there! Perhaps Victor doesn’t
have the same energy at the board as he did decades ago but anyone who plays
against him today knows that he is burning with desire to win the game!
“Taken the Golden opportunity that you
are so familiar with these two great men, could you please make a comparison
between Fischer and Kasparov, their weak and strong sides, the key of their successfully
dominating in their times, respectively?”
Sad to say Bobby gave up the game when I started to
play, so my ‘comparison’ of Fischer versus say Karpov or Kasparov wouldn’t be
helpful. I can say that Bobby had an
extraordinary capacity for hard work and probably spent more time ‘honing’ his
game than anyone previously had. He was
truly profesional in his choice of openings and so on. People like to say “Bobby was the best chess
player ever!” Such words make them feel
good or even knolwedgable. I might ask
them really? In which time frame was
Bobby the best player ever? Think about
it for a moment.
Before Bobby entered the cycle that culminated in his
historic 1972 World Championship match victory, by his own agreement, in 1970,
he allowed Bent Larsen to play board one ahead of him in the match versus the
Soviets. To repeat, in 1970, the great
Bobby Fischer, himself, thought it correct that Larsen play ahead of him.
Before Bobby defeated Boris Spassky in their match,
Bobby had never beaten Boris and in fact, had a bad score against his
rival. If we are generous, we could say
that Bobby was the best player in 1971 and 1972 and then he quit. Hmm.
That doesn’t sound like solid grounds to me to make the claim that he
was the best ever.
Were Bobby impressed, truly amazing, was his
incredible Candidate Match results as well as the final margin of victory in
the 1972 match. Bobby was always good
against ‘the lower half of the field’ in round robin events. He wasn’t always ‘dominating’ against the top
half of the field at all.
Anatoly Karpov was a remarkable world champion. It always seemed to me that victory came ‘to
easy’ for Anatoly. From 1975 – 1985,
essentially Karpov won everything. For
Anatoly ‘gold’ was important and he accepted it with minimal effort. He wasn’t trying for “Fischeresque” results,
he was happy to simply win first prize.
And win he did! People really
don’t understand how good Anatoly truly was.
Just consider that while I believe that Garry Kasparov was the greatest
player ever, in 1984 Anatoly was giving him a drubbing of 5-0 before the match
was aborted. Imagine, leading the
greatest player ever 5-0 after thirty games.
Furthermore, imagine it was only a chess genius like Garry Kasparov that
prevented Karpov from dominating for another decade!
My goodness! Thanks and thanks again, Mr. Seirawan…
You´re welcome.
