The Chess Mind

In this press release on the aftermath of the failed reunification offer by UEP, Carsten Hensel (Vladimir Kramnik's manager) responds to the claims made by FIDE Deputy President Makropoulos and especially the Topalov/Danailov team. The paragraph most relevant to the points we've been discussing on this blog runs as follows:

It is remarkable that Mr Danailov, in his statement of 16.11.2005, declares that he does not recognise any champion other than Mr Topalov. It is possible that the use of the title “GM Kramnik” in the statement of Mr Makropolous indicates a similar view on the part of FIDE. We would like to point out that in Prague FIDE recognised Vladimir Kramnik as the Classical Chess World Champion. This remains the current situation – also from a legal point of view. The same applies to Mr Toplaov [sic], who participated in the Dortmound [sic] Candidates Toournament [sic] in 2002 and signed a contract to play a match against Classical Chess World Champion Kramnik in case of a victory in this tournament. Even in May 2005 Topalov’s manager signed up Vladimir Kramnik as the Classical Chess World Champion to play in the Mtel Masters in Sofia. Immediately after Topalov’s victory in San Luis Mr Danailov, when discussing the prospect of a match, referred to Vladimir Kramnik as the Classical Chess World Champion in an interview (quote: “He is, in spite of everything, the successor of the Classical Chess World Title. Kramnik defeated Kasparov and defended his title in the match against Leko”). Until a few days ago the status of Vladimir Kramnik was never cast into doubt by Mr Danailov, not even in the negotiations with UEP. It is quite unclear to me what reasons have led to this sudden change of opinion.

Typos aside, it's a strong letter (click on the link above to read the whole thing and to investigate its internal links), calling the Topalov/Danailov team on their selective amnesia. Again, I hope this is all just posturing before the parties do the right thing, but one never knows.

In a recent post, I linked to a ChessBase article offering a solution to the draw problem. I found myself largely in agreement, disagreeing on just two small matters: the problem and the solution.

ChessBase has now published a far more sensible follow-up article by John Nunn, with which I'm in pretty much complete agreement. He argues that there really isn't a draw problem, but just a short-draw problem, and that's really a relevant problem only (or at least primarily) with super-GM events. And the solution is just as simple: organizers should simply threaten not to have the most egregious offenders back.

If that's too sensible for you, however, fear not. There's more to the latest ChessBase article than Nunn's contribution - a large number of reader emails responding to the original article offer a wide spectrum of alternative approaches. Unfortunately, none of the proposed solutions involves duels for the mutually draw-averse; a pity, as it would help secure the integrity of the game while also providing some much-needed media attention.

Short draws are occasionally a problem in professional chess, and sometimes this leads chess fans to overreact against draws per se. There isn't anything wrong with a hard-fought draw; indeed, some of the most beautiful games in chess history were draws.

Nevertheless, those driven to despair by a greatly exaggerated problem and those who think even the most worthless decisive game is somehow more valuable than the best-played draw periodically offer "solutions" to the (alleged) problem. The latest proposal can be found here, but rather than discuss their suggestion, I'll offer one of my own. I propose that those players who abhor draws and think only decisive games and Najdorfs are exciting should resolve their draws with duels.