07.03.2005 Questioning about major problems: Evgeny Sveshnikov

Should the ACP support classical chess, or would it be more beneficial in your opinion to promote rapid and blitz chess?

Support professionals! Professional, in my opinion, is a man who dedicates his life to chess. One has to consider person’s contribution to chess, length of his work, etc. First Grandmaster Association led by Kasparov declared their concern about these issues, but it remained just an empty declaration. The ACP goes in completely different direction. You consider chess to be merely a sport, and it is absolutely incorrect. The first question the ACP had to answer is for whom and why it was organized. This is the main issue, but it was not yet considered! Everybody willing just joins, and that’s it. I also joined, just in case, but now I feel like I am just a stranger in the organization. I've been a member for two years, but I do not see a single ACP tournament I could participate, and, more importantly, I do not see this organization defending my interests. It is difficult to name a chess player more professional than I am. Maybe Spassky, Korchnoi, or Bronstein... While Kasparov is less professional than I am, because he is also involved in politics, and I've always been working only in chess and for chess. However, I do not see this taken into account. 

The ACP should create a set of objectives, find out what it was organized for, and start acting accordingly. Unfortunately, I do not see much progress, neither during the meetings, nor at the ACP webpage.

How should we deal with short draws?

In Calvia Joel Lautier suggested (or maybe he was sarcastic?) that perhaps we should prohibit draws before move 40. I argued: “That would mean that I need to change my opening repertoire”, so he might actually force me changing my opening repertoire with such a decision, and this is definitely a wrong solution. We just need to appreciate commercial value of our games, as simple as that. Then people would be eager to play longer games. One should solve problems not through restrictions, but, first of all, through material motivation.

Is it possible to fight draws by adopting a different scoring system, for example, to give 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw?

I don’t think victory as Black should earn more points... Players who had more Blacks than Whites, have advantage in case of tie in Aeroflot open – it is a correct idea, but the execution is completely wrong. One should do even number of rounds. It complicates pairings? Well, make us play two games each round, three hours per game, for example. Playing 6 hours straight is not a problem.

Now about the rating system. First of all, professor Elo warned against overestimating the importance of his ratings... Somehow all attention is paid to current ratings, and nobody cares about one’s contribution. But chess is not a pure sport! It is obvious that modern chess has more in common with science. A simple example: a rapid match between Anand and Kramnik in November, 2003. First game – 19-move draw in theoretical position, second game – Anand wins quickly, playing mostly book moves. There was no play, just pure science. And this is not a rare situation, therefore rating calculation is just wrong. Why Bronstein’s rating is 2400-something, Spassky’s – 2550, Korchnoi’s – below 2600? Where did their contribution go? It should not be disregarded. I could agree that rating should be calculated during the world championship, but apart from it, there are plenty of open tournaments, and one’s reputation there means no less than one’s rating. Rating is not a measure of one’s strength, it’s a measure of one’s tournament activity. And when I see invitations or financial conditions based solely on ratings... For example, young players rated above 2650 had their travel expenses covered and enjoyed a free hotel in Krasnoyarsk during the Russian championship, while such players as Tseshkovsky, Balashov, Sveshnikov had to pay for everything. How to stop this nonsense? This is my question to the ACP.

And more about the rating. I think there should be a new rating that would credit players’ past achievements. Former world champion shouldn’t be rated lower than a young boy. It damages the reputation of chess. It is disrespectful to our profession.

Also, as far as I know, the ACP has some suggestions from Krasnoyarsk mathematicians, it would be nice to calculate mathematically correct rating. Current Elo rating was developed in 70s. There were no personal computers, so its formula was simplified, and today fast and complicated calculation is no longer a problem...

Do you think there should be special controls against various electronic devices used by players? What is your opinion about doping tests?

Electronic devices control is the only doping control we need. Can you imagine an actor being examined for doping behind the curtains? Or a scientist punished for drinking too much coffee? The same is in chess – doping control in our game is, in my opinion, a ridiculous idea. However, checking for computer assistance is quite normal. A chess player should have no mobile phones or other devices with him during the game. Forfeiting a player for a single phone ring is too harsh, of course. Ponomariov being forfeited for a ringing mobile on his birthday – it is beyond any criticism. It’s just everyone should be taught that no mobile phones are allowed during the game, like in theater... At the same time, consulting or even possessing a computer during the game is a serious offence, which should lead to a loss by default.

What is your favorite system of determining the world's strongest player?

The most interesting way of determining him would be a final match, but right now we neither have two clearly best players nor an established cycle. So the only possible solution is a match-tournament. 8 players or 6 players, like in Botvinnik times – doesn’t matter much. Candidates should be selected as soon as possible, there is no time for discussion: we need to fill existing vacuum with something. Ilyumzhinov's system, of course, does not determine world’s best player. I am against knock-out in general, first because knock-out results are too random, second because I see it as an attempt to make chess a pure sport. It is an excellent system for rapid chess! You lose, you go out and wait for the next tournament. However, for classical chess it is a bad system and it should be changed. Under no circumstances we should call knock-out a classical chess world championship. My opinion about it didn’t change since 1996, but, unfortunately, this system still exists.

What in your opinion could make chess more spectacular, generally more popular?

In order to make chess more spectacular we have to teach millions of people the rules. One can understand the rules of tennis in 5 minutes, but it does not apply to chess rules. It takes months to start playing, and it takes years to understand beauty of the game. Therefore, we need to bring more chess to schools. Maybe television could help us, too. There could be a chess school on TV. I don’t believe in live games on TV, because it calls for shortening time control. And I think the most attractive in chess is its content, not mere woodpushing. In this sense, Internet is more suitable for broadcasting chess.

I would also like to use an opportunity to add some of my thoughts...

Millions use games in computer databases. These people purchased $1000 computers, software, chess software, which also costs hundreds, they spend money on surfing the Internet, but why don’t they pay anything for the games? Whose games do they use? The games of the ACP members. Amateurs’ games don’t have much value, nobody needs them. People concentrate on games of roughly a hundred, maybe even a few dozen players. Each opening variation has its experts, their games are the most valuable. And their effort is offered for free! Buying chess software suggests buying games as well, but we don’t get anything. That’s why life of chess professional has become so tough. Russian amateurs are poor, so they hardly could feed professionals, but chess fans worldwide could... Kasparov, of course, counts on corporate sponsors, and he is able to find a million or two for himself. He might even share it with one or two players, but not with ten. And players like me won’t get anything of that money. My only chance is to make amateurs pay for the result of my work, my games. Amateurs could become main sponsors of chess. How much does Ilyumzhinov give? If it is 3 millions a year, it’s a great luck, and everybody should be grateful to him. And if we charge a fee for our games, then we could elect Ilyumzhinov indeed, and not just praise him as a man who brought us some money... Now Zhukov has appeared, and everybody is happy again. In principle, chess organization should be governed by professionals, and people I've mentioned are amateurs who can’t write laws for professionals. Bad luck for chess players! OK, I realize there should be an executive director who sorts things out. Ilyumzhinov was an excellent sponsor, we appreciate that he paid a lot of his money and attention to chess, but now it seems he lost the interest and is not as attractive as chess sponsor. And FIDE managers that gathered around him are beyond any criticism...

Questions were asked by Christina Ivanenko
Translated by Misha Savinov.