Letter From GM Hertneck
What GMs think
Open Letter From GM Yasser Seirwan to FIDE Preisdent Iljumzhinov
GM Gulko and GM Seirawan on the FIDE Crisis
GMs Hertneck & Baburin share their views on FIDE and the role and future of chess
Discussion Forum—share your views
Dear Alexander,
I would like to break my silence, as you urge me (and other GMs) once again to participate
in the crisis-discussion. This crisis is very, very old and already Lasker could have
complained about the situation :) In fact I think money in chess has never in history been
as much as in the eighties and early nineties. I just return from the European
Championship and first prize was a Fiat Punto car - is that bad? The European Championship
was held for the first time - is that bad?
The main problem is that we still have too many professionals; if some would give up chess
would be easier for the rest. By the way, I am not a professional but I like to beat them
from time to time :) And don't you think that too much money in chess would corrupt the
game, because cheating would be invited?
And even if I agreed with you there is still the open question how to change the
situation. Which player could claim to represent the chess players’ interests? The
one who gives money all the time to feed the hungry Grandmasters :) That is what I
disliked in Seirawan’s discussion - they are just looking for someone who gives a lot
of money, but everybody points to someone else - disgraceful!
Most of all the FIDE has to establish the World Championships and the Olympiads and to
care for the bi-annual ratings. At the moment all these demands are fulfilled, and while
the new world championship formula may not be suitable to establish the strongest player
in the world as world champion, at least quite a big number of top players have additional
income.
The chess competition has become incredibly hard in the Nineties, everyone is working with
Fritz and his Notebook and I am not sure if this is good for the future of chess. Maybe we
need more amateurism in chess but we can't turn the wheel back :( So let us wait and see
what the future brings.
Gerald Hertneck
Point of View
by Alexander Baburin
As Gerald himself wants his message to go with somebody’s else, maybe opposing
statement, I dare to give my comments here or rather share my own views on somewhat
broader issue.
First, I agree that financial problems are not new in chess. Yet, the comparison to
Lasker’s time may not be valid, as Lasker himself and many other pros of that time
seem to live rather comfortably. Moreover, I imagine that in those years footballers or
tennis players made modest living (OK, most of that if not all were amateurs) compared to
chess players, but look at their modern counterparts! And now look at chess players... So,
let us see why football and tennis adapted so much better to the modern world than chess.
Maybe then we can understand the current situation better.
To me the main question is whether chess has some value in the modern world. If general
public does not objectively need chess, then nothing can save this game - soon money will
dry out, the number of professionals decrease and level of play go down. But so far many
people seem to believe that they do need chess. I guess that some need intellectual
pastime, apart from watching MTV, soap operas and American talk-shows! :-) Indeed, there
are millions of people who can play chess (how well, this is another question) and we have
a long cultural tradition. We can study and admire games of old and contemporary masters,
just like some admire literary works, music or paintings.
If we agree that chess has a rather broad base in various societies, then we should
think why chess as profession is in crisis. By the way, if you do not think it is in
crisis, consider this: prize funds in most tournaments have not increased in the last 15
years or so and in many instances they decreased. Media interest in chess goes down and
down, commercial sponsors in chess are scarce, rating system is a mess, FIDE relies on
financial injections from one man, etc.
So, why does this happen? I think that one problem is that chess has been too slow
adjusting to the modern fast-moving world: people like shows (since ancient Rome!), but
who wants to watch a game of chess for 4-7 hours? Do many fancy watching all-play-all
tournament with 16 participants? So, why not to develop the sporting element - reduce time
control and use knockout format more often? Why not to make chess more interesting a show?
Most players I know agree with this, chess public will benefit (chess will be more
interesting to watch) from such changes, but to implement all of this we need some
structure. Alas, FIDE is weak... What will happen if tomorrow FIDE President decides to
retire? How will FIDE survive financially then? By the way, I am not against FIDE –
chess players need a central organization, but why cannot it be more democratic and more
sustainable? And I think that chess professionals should create something like a trade
union, so we can deal with plans like the infamous ‘Commercialisation of FIDE’
memorandum.
So, why cannot chess pros create a union (which will work with FIDE, but for the
players), invite some businessman with an interest in chess to head it, find out what
changes will make chess appealing to sponsors and then agree between us on implementing
those changes? I am not talking about inviting a tsar, who will feed hungry chess players
– we need commercial sponsors and professionals who can bring them. Without that our
profession will reduce itself to a pastime.
It is good that FIDE organizes World Championship and Chess Olympiad. And it is great
that the 1st European Championship took place. But will happen if Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov decides to host the next WCh in Arctic? Who and how takes such important
decisions in FIDE? And who in chess community will have the nerve to object them? What do
chess pros know about FIDE’s attempts to make it Olympic sport? Will it be good for
chess or will chess just get lost among so many other sports? This affects our lives and I
think that chess professional should have an organization, which can represent their
interests.
I believe that we still have some time to turn chess a professional sport. We need to
make chess an interesting show - then we can get sponsors. By the way, reducing time
control and using knock-out more often will increase the importance of intuition in chess
and reward those who is willing to take risk. Hopefully then homemade analysis with Fritz
will matter less and talent will matter more. Chess is not a science, where we need to
prove that Black in OK in the Exchange Gruenfeld - it is a game and it has to develop
together with time. 500 years ago rules were different, 120 years ago players did not use
chess clocks, less then 20 years ago there were adjournments in chess, so why chess stop
in its development now?
I hope that other players will join our discussion!
Alexander Baburin.
|
