The
ACP draws the attention to the
exclusion of players from the FIDE Grand Prix
The ACP expresses its concern about the management of events which recently
shook the FIDE Grand Prix. The withdrawal of two host cities as well as the
changes made by FIDE to the Regulations of the World Championship caused a disruption
of the participants' field in the middle of the cycle.
At the end of November 2008, FIDE and Global Chess announced that the organizers
of the third and fourth Grand Prix tournaments in Doha and Montreux would not
be able to fulfill their obligations. Both events were therefore cancelled.
Elista managed to spontaneously host the tournament planned in Doha, while it
is said that Montreux will be replaced by Kiev. FIDE and Global Chess stated
that such actions had solved all problems with the Grand Prix.
However, the switch of venues automatically led to both players, who had received
wild cards as host city nominees, being thrown out of the Grand Prix. Replacing
participants in a cycle in progress should be done only in case of absolute
necessity, as it disrupts the natural course of the cycle and contradicts the
most basic laws of sports and management. Players' rights have been neglected,
inasmuch the Tournament's Regulations and the Player's Undertaking do not foresee
such a possibility.
The Association of Chess Professionals would like to draw the attention of
FIDE and Global Chess that such a situation mainly arose because the organizers
were not asked for bank guarantees in advance. The ACP Board certainly understands
all the difficulties linked with the organization of such an important Grand
Prix, especially at a time of worldwide financial crisis, and hopes that the
cycle will be ended in 2009 without interruption.
The ACP calls for an even higher standard of management and recommends tournament
organizers to act carefully when announcing events which are not completely
guaranteed yet. The ACP finally believes that both players deprived of their
planned participation in the FIDE Grand Prix should be compensated for in some
way.
The ACP
Board
December 23, 2008
More background info on Magnus' withdrawal from the Grand Prix
Written by Henrik Carlsen
We have noted some of the comments related to Magnus' quick withdrawal from
the Grand Prix. Following an interview with the FIDE President addressing the
decision process around the introduction of a new candidate tournament, we find
it reasonable to provide some more background info on the withdrawal.
In the days prior to his withdrawal we discussed
at lenght the uncertainty involved regarding the FIDE decision process of
changing the cycle, as it was clear from the wording of the regulations that
the General Assembly could not change these regulations. The final decision
on changes to the regulations shall be made by the FIDE Presidential Board.
Upon receiving the earlier reported response from Mr. Mastrokoukos on December
4th, I sent a reply (by e-mail) the same day containing many questions regarding
the Grand Prix and the cycle change. The two first questions were:
- "Has the FIDE Presidential Board already finally decided to change
the Grand Prix regulations, and if so, can you please forward the new regulations?
- If such new regulations are not in place yet, could you please let us know
on what basis you have announced the process of staging a bid for a 2010 Candidate
tournament instead of the planned match between the GP and World Cup winners?"
Later the same day I was contacted by a senior FIDE Vice President, and I asked
him some of the same questions. Below are some excerpts from the discussion
we had. (The following is of course subject to my memory serving me right and
also my understanding of what was said.)
His first response was that the General Assembly had decided the matter as
the GA is the highest authority in FIDE. Upon my reference to the wording of
the regulations he agreed that the change had not yet been administratively
decided by the FIDE PB and there were no new regulations in place. The FIDE
PB would anyhow follow the decision of the GA.
When asked if this meant that there were basically no regulations in effect
governing the Grand Prix until the next FIDE PB meeting in March 2009, he said
that if necessary this was a formality that could be handled quickly by distributing
a memo on the GA-approved-change to the members of the PB for their signature.
When discussing this with Magnus afterwards we had to conclude that either
the GA decision should be considered a "done deal", or we would probably
not know the outcome until late March 2009. Neither of these alternatives was
acceptable to Magnus, also partly due to the need to respond to other tournament
invitations.
Having already missed Nanjing due to the GP Magnus definitely wanted to avoid
similar occurrences in 2009.
Henrik Carlsen,
December 17th, 2008
Remarks on the ACP's FIDE Congress report
By Nick Faulks, Bermuda
I have always felt it was a shame that the ACP, while frequently complaining
about FIDE's management of chess (not always without cause!), chose not to contribute
to the many committee meetings where changes can be made. It was therefore very
pleasing to see GM Macieja in attendance at a number of meetings last month,
and keen to put forward the views of himself and his colleagues. The Polish
team's loss was our gain!
I read with great interest his
summary of events in Dresden, and was pleased that you gave it such prominence.
I have a few comments based on his, and hope you will be willing to publish
them. Please note that, while these thoughts are influenced by my membership
of the FIDE Titles & Ratings Committee, the opinions expressed are entirely
my own.
New "Elite Grandmaster" title
The comparison of the number of GMs with the population rated over 2200 is rather
unhelpful. In 1972 the vast majority of players of sufficient playing strength
to fall into the 2200–2400 range had no rating simply because they had
never played in a rated event. I should prefer to compare the number of GMs
with those of a certain playing strength, let's call them "experts".
The GM population has increased by a factor of 14 since 1972, so we are being
asked to believe that the number of "experts" has increased by an
even greater factor. There is no objective way to check this, but I am skeptical.
K-factor (development coefficient)
GM Macieja is quite correct that reducing the period between rating lists effectively
reduces the K-factor, although he is not, as he appears to think, the first
to notice this. I cannot justify an effect as great as he suggests without assuming
an average of more than ten rated games played per month, which seems high,
but agree that, other things being equal, a 20% increase in the K-factor might
be warranted in response to the move from two lists per year to four, and now
to six.
The point about other things being equal is important. The Titles & Ratings
Committee had a lengthy and, I felt, well-informed discussion about the K-factor,
and it was agreed that a significant increase was probably in order. However,
it was also agreed that the issue was a complex one, and that there might be
unforeseen consequences. Therefore, since the results of tournaments played
since 2005 are now available in an easily manipulable form, the conclusion was
that a historical investigation should be undertaken, with a view to a final
decision next year which would be underpinned by solid analysis.
The General Assembly instead chose to pass an arbitrary doubling of the factor.
Of course they had the right to do that, but we can look forward to some interesting
and unpredictable results. Among others, I suggest that
- we shall see numerous players breaking through the 2800 barrier, and
- the rating requirements for GM and IM tiles will become irrelevant.
I'm not saying these are bad consequences, but are they intended or unintended?
Who knows? If anyone doubts the chaos that can be caused by radical and untested
changes, they need look no further back than to the effect on the Dresden Olympiad
of the "revolutionary" new Swiss pairings system.
Standardisation of time controls
I was puzzled by the conclusion of this debate. Essentially, the only permitted
increments will be zero or 30", even though each of these has drawbacks.
Furthermore, it will not be permitted to introduce an increment only for the
final section of the game - I had always been told that the top players favoured
this but the clocks could not handle it, but now that the new DGT clocks have
this feature it has been banned.
The problems with a zero increment are well known – it can lead to the
nonsense of K+B chasing K+N around the board until someone's flag falls. Note
that this behaviour would become entirely rational if the trendy 3-1-0 scoring
were to catch on. Still, if FIDE and the ACP are united in seeing this as the
way forward for chess, I suppose it's not my place to stand in the way of progress.
The biggest problem with the 30" increment is that, despite having been
forced to play on this basis for many years, many players still don't seem to
like it. This may be partly because, at the end of a long game, the issue of
bladder control can become crucial. For these reasons I have always argued that
it should be routine for the sudden death phase of any game to be played with
a 2" increment, but that will now be prohibited.
Coming late for a game
This is vitally important. Macieja reports that
"The Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee proposed to add the
following article to the FIDE Laws of Chess: "Any player who arrives
at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game, unless
the arbiter decides otherwise. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules
of a competition may specify a different default time.". The proposal
was accepted by the Executive Board and recommended for the General Assembly
to be approved. The final decision was however postponed till the Presidential
Board Meeting."
I believe that is not the full story. I could not attend the GA, which clashed
with an Olympiad round, but am told that the proposal which the Presidential
Board will be considering is in fact far different from the one described above,
and immensely controversial. In the absence of any minutes from the meeting,
it would be interesting to hear the impression of anyone who was there.
A draw offer
It was of course necessary to alter the rules, since tournament organisers have
been acting as if the change allowing them to restrict draws had already been
made. Interestingly, it was noted in two committees that the Dresden Olympiad
was in clear breach of the FIDE Laws of Chess as they then stood, but nobody
seemed to think this was very important.
