The
ACP-ChessBase questionnaire – preliminary results
By Olena Boytsun, ACP Board Member
On the 13th of February 2009 the Association of Chess Professionals (ACP) and
ChessBase announced a poll they were conducting among top chess players. The
preliminary results of the poll have been prepared for the attention of the
FIDE Presidential Board, whose meeting is taking place in Istanbul on the 6-8th
of March 2009. A more detailed report with a deep analysis
of the poll results as well as players’ suggestions will be published in the
course of this month.
The ACP Board had intended to present the poll results as well as some proposals
for the improvement of chess management to the FIDE Presidential Board through
the participation of an ACP Board representative in Istanbul. However, FIDE
officials warned the ACP Board in writing that active participation in the FIDE
PB was only possible under special circumstances. With regret the ACP Board
decided not to send a representative to Istanbul to try to take part in the
PB meeting. Therefore the following results are provided in written form.
The main aim of the ACP-ChessBase questionnaire was to understand the opinion
of top chess players on the most important issues of their professional life.
The poll was conducted by email in order to make sure that the answers genuinely
came from the players surveyed. Criteria of participation were as follows: players
with a rating 2690 or higher (on the January 2009 FIDE list), plus participants
of the current cycle, plus some ex-world champions.
The following poll statistics are provided
as of 05.03.2009. Poll results have been audited by the ACP Board and representatives
of ChessBase simultaneously and independently, in order to assure the correctness
of the results.
Despite the time frame (13.02.2009 –
05.03.2009) that was full of chess events, in which most of the chess professionals
took part in, 22 players reacted to the questionnaire. 21 (twenty one) respondents
sent back the questionnaire with their answers and suggestions. One (one) potential
respondent declined in writing the proposition to participate in the poll.
Therefore, the preliminary poll results
are based on the answers of 21 top grandmasters.
The questionnaire by itself can be found on ChessBase.com
or the ACP
web site.

13 respondents (61%) stated that the match is the best format for a World Championship
final, while 5 grandmasters (24%) prefer a round robin or double round robin
tournaments. 1 player believes that World Championship final should be a knock-out
tournament. The respondents also shared their ideas, how the World Championship
cycle should be organized. This will be published in the final report.

There is no clear result on what could be the best qualification system for
the World Championship final. The majority of respondents (7 people, 33%) think
that a round robin tournament is the best option. 6 players (29%) would prefer
candidates matches. One should point out that during the evaluation of the answers
to Question 2, if a player choose more than one variant and didn’t prefer A,
B or C precisely, his answer was marked as D, and his opinion will be provided
in a more detailed report. The answer D in most cases contains the variant of
a round robin tournament with another supplement event.
Question 3 and Question 4 are about time controls that the respondents think
are appropriate for World Championship and chess tournaments in general. 12
respondents (60%) think that the so called “Classical” time control is the most
suitable for the World Championship. 1 respondent considered the rapid time
control as the most efficient one.
However, unlike the World Championship time control, only 28% (6 people) think
that the “classical” time control should be implemented in chess events in general.
10 grandmasters (47%) preferred the FIDE time control. 2 respondents didn’t
clearly answer the question, specifying that all controls are possible for chess
events. Therefore this answer option was added to the question.
90% of respondents (19 people) think that there should be a time increment
starting from move 1. None is against any form of time increment. One respondent
thinks that there should be an increment from move 40 and one player provided
his opinion on the interdependence of time increment and time control.
The majority (13) of respondents (62%) agreed that “Decent dress” should be
made obligatory during World Championship and top tournaments. 5 people pointed
out that suit and tie should be obligatory. None was against any dress code.
Only 1 respondent believes that doping controls should be obligatory and comply
with the regulations of the IOC. 8 people (38%) don’t see a necessity for doping
controls, but would accept them, while other 8 players would accept doping controls
if they are adapted specifically for chess. 4 respondents are against any doping
controls in chess.
67% of respondents believe that the anti-computer cheating controls should
be obligatory and made as tough as possible. 3 respondents (14%) don’t see a
necessity in cheating controls, but would accept them. One respondent didn’t
give a precise answer to the question and pointed out that a special study on
the subject of anti-computer cheating controls should be provided.
Only one respondent believes that the player should automatically forfeit the
game, if he is late for a game. 33% of players believe that either a financial
or rating penalty should be the punishment for being late; another 33% (7 people)
specified other options of punishment. 29% preferred not to have any penalty
for being late for a game.
67% of respondents (14 people) believe that the current rating system is fine
and there is no need for changes, while 33% suggested some changes in the rating
system.
Since the question is important for the FIDE Presidential Board decisions,
the more detailed overview is given to the Question 11.
47% of respondents clearly objected
to any changes made to the current cycle. Some respondents already expressed
their position and objected in public. For example, GM Boris Gelfand fully supported
the views of GM Levon Aronian that the later expressed in his open letter (http://en.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4005059),
published on the 6th of December 2008.
The opinion of GM Maxime Vachier-Lagrave
is the following: "A WCC cycle should keep on until its end. Changes
during a cycle are basically unfair for its participants, as it may change their
conditions to qualify for the final of the WCC. Only in case a WCC cycle may
collapse some changes may happen, but only after all the participants of the
current cycle and FIDE have a meeting to decide exactly which changes."
GM Ernesto Inarkiev: “I believe that if we are going
to have a long cycle with big sporting privileges for the Champion, than the
question about changes will be raise all the time. Strong players who left the
cycle will not want to go through a long qualification events in order to finally
play the Champion, who can be on the same level as them. As a result, it will
lead to lobbying for changes in the cycle. Not to make changes in the cycle
in this case means to exclude a real challenger from the cycle for a long period
of time, as well as the to refuse financial inflows. At the same time, the constant
implementation of changes will not allow to build a normal stable system for
the World Championship cycle. In my opinion, both variants are bad, and one
has to choose the lesser of two evils.”
"Полагаю,
что пока у нас
будет длинный
цикл с большими
спортивными
привилегиями
для Чемпиона,
то вопрос об изменениях
будет возникать
постоянно. Сильные
игроки, выбывшие
из цикла, не будут
хотеть проходить
длительный отбор,
чтобы затем сыграть
с Чемпионом, который
по уровню игры
вполне сопоставим
с ними. В результате,
будут лоббироваться
изменения в цикле.
Не вносить изменения
в цикл в этом случае
означает выключить
реального претендента
из борьбы на длительный
срок, и отказ от
финансовых вливаний,
а постоянное
внесение изменений
не позволит создать
нормальную стабильную
систему розыгрыша
первенства мира.
На мой взгляд,
оба варианта
плохи, и приходится
выбирать меньшее
из зол."
29% of respondents (6 grandmasters) provided their view on the abrupt changes
to the current cycle, having chose an open “other” option, therefore their answers
are cited below.
GM Alexei Shirov pointed out that “changes
are needed because the Grand Prix is on its way to collapsing”. GM Shirov
suggested the optimal system of the World Championship cycle, which will be
provided in detail in the final report to follow.
GM Rustam Kasimdzhanov expressed his opinion as the following:
“I find any changes made during the cycle
generally wrong; but in order to make any judgments upon a current situation
one would have to see the whole picture (link to financial crisis , for instance)
, and I do not think I have any sufficient knowledge to do so at the moment.“
GM Vladimir Kramnik
beleived that: “I think that the new system, which includes candidates tournament,
is a better one, because it serves the main goal of a qualification, which is
to define the strongest challenger for the title. But, of course, it should
have been done before the beginning of the cycle. In general ,the whole plan
of the WC cycle must be well thought out in advance.”
GM Vugar Gashimov stressed that:
“There should be only one format of WCC for a long time - not change it every
year”.
GM Etienne Bacrot pointed out that:
“The current system is way too complicated anyway, so that changes may be generally
welcome. But of course, FIDE should never have changed rules during the cycle,
as they did in Dresden.”
GM Michael Adams expressed the following
opinion: “It is never acceptable to make
changes to a cycle in progress. In recent times, the formats have also been
changed extremely regularly which is also not very desirable. The best way to
resolve the situation is to come up with a fixed format which can be used for
several cycles. I am opposed to privileges and seedings for players in general
and would either avoid these completely or keep them to an absolute minimum
(only for the World Champion).”
5 players would accept the changes to the current cycle, if they lead to increasing
of the overall prize fund of the cycle.
12 players are comfortable with the condition to play the tournament in a soundproof
glass cabin in a public square. One grandmaster rejected the idea, while 19%
are uncomfortable with the idea, but would accept it, if it benefits chess.
The answer variant “Other” was added to the answer options, since 4 respondents
gave their extended view on the question.
The ACP and ChessBase thank all the respondents for their participation and
hope that this first project will be a perfect base for future improvement and
increased efficiency of the chess management system. A more detailed report
on the ACP-ChessBase questionnaire with a deeper analysis of the poll results
will be published on the website of the partners during the month of March 2009.
05.03.2009
2009 © the Association of Chess Professionals | www.chess-players.org
2009 © ChessBase GmbH | www.chessbase.com
For any questions concerning the ACP-Chessbase questionnaire, please, don’t
hesitate to contact Olena Boytsun at strategical.development@gmail.com.