We got what we deserved
(or reflections about the current situation in the chess world)
Everybody knows the present chaos in the chess world. The multitude of open letters kept me from expressing my conclusions earlier, but I have now decided to set out my opinion, which is somewhat different from those expressed in the media.
This chaos is not the result of our inability to raise sponsorship, or the arrogant attitude of FIDE officials towards the chess players, no way. I completely agree that FIDE is far from perfect, there are no doubts about it. But the real reasons for the present chaos lie much deeper and unfortunately there is probably no solution at this moment. Chess players themselves, with their lack of moral integrity, are completely responsible for the current situation.
During my school education I had the luck to have contact with an old and highly educated professor of French Literature and Culture. One day she told us a simple thing: once you lose your honor, you can never restore it. As simple as that. Which means that if you ever made a mistake that compromised your morality, then no longer how hard you try to correct that, you can never restore your credibility fully. On the other hand one can claim that we all make mistakes, which is undoubtedly true. But after that one must rather search for forgiveness, not raise oneself above others in a belief that one has become the paragon of correctness. Note that I am talking about mistakes involving the moral side, about honor. Unfortunately, in the chess world 9 of every 10 players who get to the top make similar mistakes, even if only once. The worst thing is that these very people quickly forget their sins. So my main conclusion is that as long as we are agreeing to compromises, there will never be order in the chess world.
A few examples. There are many questions to ask the main actors on the stage. However, I will limit myself to the minimum. Don't forget, people who have once lost their honor can never restore it.
Mr. Garry Kasparov is undoubtedly one of the greatest chess players in the history. Does it give him the right to avoid any qualifications these days? Does it give him the right to pick his preferred challenger even after this challenger has lost the qualification match? Does it give him the right to arrange the World Championship matches himself, which is the prerogative of FIDE? Does it give him the right when losing a match to return to FIDE and demand privileges? My answer is NO. Nobody is denying Kasparov's strength as a chess player during the past 20 years, but this has little to do with a fair fight for the World Championship title. Kasparov's behavior on the chess stage can be called anything except democratic. The most amazing thing is his efforts lately to teach the world outside chess about democracy in general.
Mr. Vladimir Kramnik should answer one simple question: how did he qualify for the match with Kasparov? I don't need an answer; he should provide an answer to himself and face the truth. Lately in some interviews Mr. Kramnik compares his multiple draws in some tournaments with a 0-0 (soccer) result between France and Italy (meaning a high level of quality with no winner). Let's change the angle a bit. Imagine France or Italy refusing to play in the World Cup qualifiers and trying to get right to the final. Can you imagine that, Mr. Kramnik? Both France and Italy are respected soccer powers, but they accept the situation when they are kicked off already from the Group stage. Look at Korea/Japan or the recent results in Portugal. If you are strong, you must prove it in a fair battle. If it happens to lose, be good and step aside this time, leaving the road to winners. Next time you'll come better prepared and will show your true value.
Mr. Ruslan Ponomariov
In an interview Mr. Sakaev expressed his opinion, which probably matches that of about 90% of the people from the chess world: "For any chessplayer to play a match with Kasparov is a good school, decent money... But to seek an occasion to cancel the match is simply silly". The part about the "good school" is certainly correct, but people forget that Ponomariov was the reigning World Champion, while Kasparov didn't go through any qualification process for this match. It is a matter of principle, which nobody seems to be interested in. It's like "Make this compromise, Ruslan! It will be a good school for you, good money!"... So many people were willing for such a compromise. The sporting principle didn't matter for those people, the moral justification as to why Kasparov should have privileges was also forgotten.
In fact Mr. Ponomariov showed incredible maturity by not seeking any personal advantage from that situation. Mr. Sakaev and most other players would certainly have made a compromise instead and would have forgotten about all their sporting principles about qualification.
When FIDE pressed Ponomariov very hard and there was no way out, he first agreed to play Kasparov, but he eventually simply couldn't surrender his very last drops of dignity. Now everybody blames him for canceling the match with Kasparov. I myself praise Ponomariov for his decision to at least stand up and make his final demands. In the end FIDE and Kasparov collapsed under their own inflexibility.
Mr. Ponomariov is not my friend, I barely know him personally. But unlike most of the top players Ponomariov didn't cross the line and preferred to keep his honor rather then surrender or fight for the title under unfair conditions. He didn't step into the same crowd. This is a true example of principled position and my conratulations to Ruslan for that.
ACP
It is a great idea to support all chess professionals and to defend their rights. However, I have my doubts concerning the moral integrity about some people from its board members, therefore I preferred not to join this organization yet.
Moreover, it is well-known that ACP's President, Mr.Lautier, is Mr.Kramnik's friend and second, which casts some doubt on the neutrality of his decisions. One of the main goals of ACP has now become to back the Kramnik-Leko match. Was that one of the initial ideas of ACP when the organization was built?
Chess professionals in general
One shouldn't go too far. Look at the tournament in Libya. It can't get worse than that: our sport is being asked to recognize it as the World Championship. The tournament in Tripoli is an interesting, strong and exciting event, but to name it World Championship is simply not correct. What a shame to have a World Championship where some players were forced to withdraw their participation due to their nationality and other principled players refused to participate because of the unfair condition that the winner must play Mr. Kasparov. Well, this was already clear a long time ago; hence, my question to the remaining participants: why are you playing in this competition? The answer is simple: MONEY. But then again, we are dealing with a compromise: people are willing to sell their principles in order to earn money. Even some of those who criticize FIDE for their undemocratic principles have decided to play in Libya. A sad situation indeed.
Well, that's the reason for the present situation in the chess world - because of similar compromises.
There are people in the chess world who understand this situation perfectly, but even these honest people are showing a lack of principles. Just two examples:
Mr. Yasser Seirawan, whom I highly respect for many qualities, is in my opinion often deeply wrong in his actions. Here I will use the occasion to express a few words about the Prague Agreement. In my opinion such agreements highlight the worst of what we have seen in chess - compromises. And Mr. Seirawan is a person always ready for compromises. Who cares about qualification? Who cares about sporting principles? Who cares about fair play? Who cares that players such as for instance Anand are excluded from these agreements, while the reigning World Champion Ponomariov is not even asked? Seirawan's view can be best expressed by the following words: "let's take a few top players, forget about any qualification and then we have a solution! "
Well, as long as people forget about the basic principle of qualification, chess will never be a fair sport.
Mr. Andras Adorjan absolutely correctly criticizes Anatoly Karpov for his privileges in many World Championship matches of the past. But he uses this argument to justify Kasparov's privileges today. Why not say " sorry, Mr. Kasparov, but once you lost your title (you decide yourself when this happened, in 1993 or 2000) and there were no privileges mentioned in the contract, you have to start like any other chess player at the beginning of the qualification cycle".
Sorry if all of this is very pessimistic. I don't offer a solution to the existing problems because there is simply no solution. Too many players on stage "have lost their honor". No matter what we do, these people will be ruling further, because some of them are brilliant chess players and that seems to give them the right to cross many lines. However, in order to build a democratic world, moral qualities are more important. "Clean" guys like Anand, Shirov, or, for instance, Svidler (not bad chess players either, by the way) are simply staying aside with no power to do anything. Ruslan Ponomariov is desperately trying to propose a solution (rather out of his own desperate situation), but nobody's listening to him. Indeed, why? We get what we deserve: the complete chaos and corrupt structures at all levels of the chess world. And it starts with the very top chess players, who blame each other with words like "I don't see reasons to consider him Nr.1", when in reply comes "I don't see the reason to consider him World Champion" Great, folks, then please start behaving like all other mortals! All respect for the one who wins in fair competitions, with no privileges whatsoever.
Before finishing, one more thing. After the "Great Reunification", what comes after that? Suppose Kasparov or Kramnik becomes the so-called Absolute World Champion. What then? How to determine the challengers? Via a KO system again? Or find another system? Or maybe Kasparov should again pick an opponent he prefers? Some players are trying to develop a future cycle, which they think should work out after the reunification. Then why not make it fair right from the start, when everybody, including Kasparov and Kramnik, play in it: now, not later? Right from the start. They don't want to play? Very well, leave those people aside. They are great players, but they are not fair sportsmen. Or like some FIDE officials prefer to say: "we need Kasparov to raise money". Does it mean that we need to have Kasparov always directly in the final or semifinal? Pretty weird. The sad thing is that after the "Great Reunification Plan " the chess world will be left in similar chaos. You can't build a democratic system if you start with undemocratic methods right from the beginning.
GM Dorian Rogozenko
Bucharest, Romania
June 2004
© 2004 Dorian Rogozenko